TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Court: Execute Saddam Within 30 Days
Pages (4): « 1 [2] 3 4 »

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Court: Execute Saddam Within 30 Days

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z It's not my fault you're amazingly deluded, illinformed, and haven't the slightest grip on reality. You juvenile, emotional, and irrational response means little to me.

But you just side-stepped the fact that you do, generalize a LOT when it comes to the military...

Not everyone in a uniform is the fuckin' anti-christ; they do get dealt with you know.
Obviously not to your satisfaction though but then again, I don't see them asking you how to deal with their own assholes.

It's going to happen and they can't control EVERY soldier even though, yes, and you are right here, they are responsible for them.

I doubt this guy will be excuted. Am sure something will happen to make him dissapear.

Like it or not. half of Iraq really likes this guy. And it's only becuase they actually know that it was a better place when he was in charge compared to now.

I fear if this continues that the riots will blow up even more between the 2 parties.

quote:

Originally posted by Massive84 I doubt this guy will be excuted. Am sure something will happen to make him dissapear. Like it or not. half of Iraq really likes this guy. And it's only becuase they actually know that it was a better place when he was in charge compared to now.

what?

quote:

Originally posted by Massive84 I doubt this guy will be excuted. Am sure something will happen to make him dissapear. Like it or not. half of Iraq really likes this guy. And it's only becuase they actually know that it was a better place when he was in charge compared to now. I fear if this continues that the riots will blow up even more between the 2 parties.

I'd be willing to bet $50 he will be executed

quote:

Originally posted by Massive84 And it's only becuase they actually know that it was a better place when he was in charge compared to now.

Unless you where a Sunni, Kurd, christian, marsh arab, a political opponent, dissident, threw your lot in with the UN forces after the 1st gulf war or anyone on the boarder of Iran who got shot, gassed and blown up.
All's said and done, he's a bad bastard and good riddance either way if he sits in a cell until dead or executed.

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith Unless you where a Sunni, Kurd, christian, marsh arab, a political opponent, dissident, threw your lot in with the UN forces after the 1st gulf war or anyone on the boarder of Iran who got shot, gassed and blown up. All's said and done, he's a bad bastard and good riddance either way if he sits in a cell until dead or executed.

Uhhh... Saddam and his Baathist regime were mostly Sunni. Most of his political opponents were Shi'ia. And eigther way, everybody infinitely more screwed now compared to when the CIA hitman and US asset Saddam was in power.

Um, yeah... maybe I'll just say the majority muslim sect population of the country (heck I dont practice it to know the proper difference! )
It would have been a much better solution to just have his neighbours kick him out with some kind of diplomatic solution, in saying that though do you think it would have changed anything so to speak when it comes to the sectarian violence?
Because form what I can tell, the only reason theyre up to so much sillyness in the first place is because the jackboot was taken off their necks to let them do it. I just find it curious because there must have been some kind of seething underbelly of resentment existing with SH in power for them to be offing each other at the prolific rate theyre going about it right now.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo yes. in the larger picture (the one that matters) it does. including your Donkey party heroes. because at the end of the day, "mobile weapons labs" are not your best argument for or against invading Iraq. smart people don't focus on that.

I see - so regardless of being misled by a lying shithead along with a few other tall tales including meetings with al Qaeda leaders in Prague:

quote:

Postwar findings support CIA's January 2003 assessment, which judged that "the most reliable reporting casts doubt" on...an alleged meeting between Muhammad Atta and an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague, and confirm that no such meeting occurred...Prewar assessments described reporting on the Atta lead as contradictory and unverified. In September 2002, CIA assessed that some evidence asserted that the two met, and some cast doubt on the possibility. By January 2003, CIA assessed that...they were "increasingly skeptical that Atta traveled to Prague in 2001 or met with IIS officer al-Ani." Postwar debriefings of al-Ani indicate that he had never seen or heard of Atta until after September 11, 2001, when Atta's face appeared on the news http://intelligence.senate.gov/phaseiiaccuracy.pdf

unmanned drones that could reach the U.S. in 45 min., buying uranium in Africa (and those lovely mushroom cloud images Condi and Cheney sold us all in rather nicely):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3056626.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/internati...,909946,00.html
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/071803B.shtml
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/printer_071903A.shtml

aluminum tubes made for nuke processing:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/i...ner=rssuserland

True - they focus on other things such as being deliberately misled by more than just a mobile weapons lab theory. Perhaps you can explain to me some more of these in detail?

quote:

whether the NYT is in the pocket of the Democratic party or that Judith Miller reported Chalabi as a source or that Al Queera was in Iraq is all, to this day, debatable. i don't care to but it's something that bored people will engage in when given nothing constructive to do.

Or perhaps it's what others care to run from when confronted with a point against their "librul" media conspiracy?

quote:

what your party heroes have said on the record minutes and years before the war and your vacuous claim that Bush lied, cannot be reconciled.

Ahh yes, the old - "Clinton started it" neocon line, once again. If there are Dems. who wanted invasion, believed wholeheartedly that Bush was right to invade and damn all the counterevidence that he and you neocons willfully dismissed, believed their vote authorizing Bush to invade ONLY AS A MEANS OF LAST RESORT once all other options were exhausted (kicking out weapons inspectors tends to state otherwise) and continue supporting such actions by Bush, then they rightfully have you and others to answer to for their actions. I do not nor will I ever speak for every Democrat's vote - they can only speak for themselves.

I do, however, speak for myself who at one point believed this war was worth fighting for because I was sold on the thought of having nukes and WMDs pointed at my head, and that it was a cause to disarm that man more greater than seeking out the actual man who attacked us on 9/11.

Of course once I gathered that there were no WMDs, saw how men in this Administration have been salivating over attacking Iraq for years prior to invasion, understood that we deliberately took our troops off of bin Laden and gave that fight up to the crooked warlords (whom did nothing whatsoever) and diverted our attention to this hapless dictator in Iraq instead, and deployed far too few troops to properly stabilize the country after invasion let alone give no proper marked goals to attain and reach,

well,

I guess I got a little smart-like and decided that perhaps this wasn't a brilliant idea after all? I can only hope that folks in the Democratic party felt the same. If they don't, then they will continue to have to answer for their beliefs.

quote:

nope. Clinton couldn't even take Somalia seriously, what makes you think he could have taken the Greater Middle East seriously? now you help me out...based on such intel do you think Clinton would have lied about it?

Always glad to help you out, Q - seems to me that Clinton didn't do the invading, now did he? If he did decide to invade, he would have the exact same problems to answer for based on the intelligence (or lack thereof).

But as it seems now, who was it that willfully dismissed the counterevidence and invaded anyway?

Who's in the middle of this clusterfuck civil war fighting for in Islamic fundamentalist regime in leagues with Iran?

Who sent too few troops to secure the borders and explosive sites like al Qa qa?

Who believed the body and vehicle armour situation was not dire enough to act on it sooner?

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Ahh yes, the old - "Clinton started it" neocon line, once again.

Na.
That would actually infer that Clinton actually did something.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r [QUOTE]Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Ahh yes, the old - "Clinton started it" neocon line, once again./QUOTE] Na. That would actually infer that Clinton actually did something.

lol, he was too busy renting out rooms in the White House,
playing the sax, and getting head from a fat girl.

Saddam to be hanged by Sunday

Ex-dictator�s execution expected to be carried out by start of Eid holiday

NBC News and news services
Updated: 2 hours, 17 minutes ago

Former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, sentenced to death for his role in 148 killings in 1982, will have his sentence carried out by Sunday, NBC News reported Thursday. According to a U.S. military officer who spoke on condition of anonymity, Saddam will be hanged before the start of the Eid religious holiday, which begins at sundown Saturday.

The hanging could take place as early as Friday, NBC�s Richard Engel reported.

The U.S. military received a formal request from the Iraqi government to transfer Saddam to Iraqi authorities, NBC reported on Thursday, which is one of the final steps required before his execution. His sentence, handed down last month, ordered that he be hanged within 30 days.

MORE:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16384738/

quote:

Originally posted by DevilDogUSMC lol, he was too busy renting out rooms in the White House, playing the sax, and getting head from a fat girl.

Ahh yes, something like $65 million of our taxpayer money going to investigate the supposed improprieties of Whitewater all to find out just how hard the GOP Congress and blowhards wanted to take down Bubba for a private affair blowjob.

Then again, it's not like Republicans know much about wise investing in our taxpayer $ in the first place. For some strange reason, the last 3 Republican presidents seemingly outspent our Democratic one quite substantially, with the most recent Republican pres. blowing them all out of the water, but I digress.

And BTW, I do appreciate as much as the next guy seeing this bastard getting hanged. I wish there was quite a bit more pinned on him during his trial, but what was given will certainly do. My whole point in arguing in this thread is not to show how much I love Saddam and hate America to which our dear soldier boys seemingly love attempting to pin on any dissenters, but rather that I will continue believing invading Iraq in the manner in which we did (WMD scare) as well as complete lack of understanding and dismissal of dissenting views for postwar planning, let alone take our eye off the man and group of terrorists that actually attacked us in the first place, was not an ideal plan to support in any sane manner.

Boy do you know how to generalize decades of government
spending with "Republicans spent more than democrats".

Anyway, at least Republicans are all about tax cuts, letting
us keep our money to do as we wish more than dems who love
taking our hard earned money...

quote:

Originally posted by DevilDogUSMC Boy do you know how to generalize decades of government spending with "Republicans spent more than democrats".

Umm, is that somehow run counter to my point over the past 26 years with the last 4 presidents?

quote:

Anyway, at least Republicans are all about tax cuts, letting us keep our money to do as we wish more than dems who love taking our hard earned money...

Hmm, please don't tell Reagan that, who happened to impose a tax hike after his tax cut by the advice of my former Senator Bob Dole. A little trip down memory lane for you:

quote:

The following year, Reagan signed another big tax increase in the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984. This raised taxes by $18 billion per year or 0.4 percent of GDP. A similar sized tax increase today would be about $44 billion. The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 raised taxes yet again. Even the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which was designed to be revenue-neutral, contained a net tax increase in its first two years. And the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1987 raised taxes still more. The year 1988 appears to be the only year of the Reagan presidency, other than the first, in which taxes were not raised legislatively. Of course, previous tax increases remained in effect. According to a table in the 1990 budget, the net effect of all these tax increases was to raise taxes by $164 billion in 1992, or 2.6 percent of GDP. This is equivalent to almost $300 billion in today's economy http://www.townhall.com/opinion/col.../28/168618.html

That article goes on to mention that Reagan, in fact, raised taxes 7 times. Also please don't inform Bush Sr. for imposing the tax hike that he implemented proceeding his "no new taxes" debacle.

And please don't remember how incredible our economy was with Clinton's economic policies in place either with a tax hike primarily on the upper echelon.

And let's keep something in mind as well - Democrats today propose keeping the tax cut for the middle class in the same manner as Clinton did. What they disagree with is keeping the tax cuts for the upper class, the top 10% which receives 90% of the tax cut, as well as tax breaks to corporations and oil companies which I've posted my criticisms on in another thread. I realize as much as any old bloke that you may believe they are entitled to their money as much as those in the middle class, but in terms of helping boost the economy this is NOT the ideal philosophy to hold.

Our recovery from the 2001 little recession has been one of the most anemic on record as a result of these asinine tax cuts to the wealthy. The only reason why it didn't get worse was because the GOP-led Congress helped maintain and even increase federal spending by using BORROWED money instead of tax revenues. It wasn't the tax cuts that helped us with our recovery - it was the fucking borrowing like a teenager with daddy's credit card.

And guess what? Guess who has to pay back that bill from your Administration and GOP Congress' borrowing and spend-thrift habits in efforts to support their tax cut?

And let's also keep something in mind in regards to Clinton vs. Dubya: Clinton's discretionary spending increased from $539 to $614 billion during his time in office - a 13% increase. Wanna know how much discretionary spending has increased for Dubya? From $649 to $967 as of February '06, a 48% increase.

I'm sorry, you were saying something about the history of librul spending?

Finally, a run-down on numbers of inflation-adjusted increase in tax revenues during Reagan's presidency: 22.13%

Clinton's presidency: 81%

Dubya so far: 17%

All of which can be found here: http://www.bea.gov/

The bottom line is these tax cuts are not paying for themselves, period. I love idealism as much as the next guy about keeping my $ from taxes and all that jazz, but I've accepted the notion that as an American citizen I am required to pay my taxes to the government and hope that my government can sustain itself without borrowing the shit out of itself and have it come back to bite us all in the collective asses down the road.

I'll leave you with a word from none other than the Wall Street Journal back in July of this year:

quote:

Do Tax Cuts Pay for Themselves? Not if you read the fine print in the new White House midsession review of budget trends. "While difficult to estimate precisely," Treasury long-run analyses of the effects of President Bush's tax cuts "may ultimately" raise total national output of goods and services by 0.7%. .....So is that enough to pay for the tax cuts, even after allowing them to work their economic magic over the next 10 years? The Center for Budget Policies and Priorities, a Washington think tank and advocacy group that is distinctly unfriendly to Bush fiscal policies, says it isn't. "A 0.7 percent increase in the economic output that the Congressional Budget Office has projected for 2016 would represent an additional $146 billion [in gross domestic product]," it says. "If new revenues equaled as much as 20% of the additional output, the increase in revenues resulting from making the tax cuts permanent (assuming Treasury's best-case assumptions) would be $29 billion." http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2006/...for-themselves/

Actually, let me give you a few more pieces. This following analysis demonstrates that since WWII, Democratic presidents have consistently produced greater GDP growth, lower unemployment, and lower inequality versus Republican presidents:

http://www.princeton.edu/~bartels/income.pdf

An interesting piece on the stock market, although it's a bit dated:

http://www.slate.com/?id=2071929

And if you're really interested, here's an analysis back in '04 of comparison:

http://www.eriposte.com/economy/other/demovsrep.htm

I'll be honest, I never read your posts, so long and
boring with equally boring links I'm sure. You put
alot of effort into them thou, bravo.

Anyway, I support their spending on important things
like defense. You say it's a bad thing republicans
spend more, I say it was necessary because of lack
of proper funding by dems and counter their cuts.

Fine you can say reagan from 20 years ago as an example
of a republican not into tax cuts. But as parties they
are the ones more for tax cuts than dems.

quote:

Originally posted by DevilDogUSMC I'll be honest, I never read your posts, so long and boring with equally boring links I'm sure. You put alot of effort into them thou, bravo.

Then you have given everyone the perfect excuse to not read yours. How can you say you are right on any issue when the only way you ca be right about anything is to understand the other side.

too bad, though, you do have some good points,,,,,

quote:

Originally posted by LazFX Then you have given everyone the perfect excuse to not read yours. How can you say you are right on any issue when the only way you ca be right about anything is to understand the other side. too bad, though, you do have some good points,,,,,

I skim thru his only because I don't have time to read it
AND the links to support his arguements here at work. And
to tell you the truth after I skim I realize I've heard
them before but they won't change my opinion on the matter.

Wish I had time to post links to support my assurtations.
But we're just expressing our views and I don't think many
of us can change each other's mind about alot. So I'm not
saying I'm right, just that's how I see things and I can
always be wrong as I accept I don't know everything about
the world but like reading other points of views.

Just alot of the talking points about little things and
statistics decades ago gets alittle boring. And all the
generalizations others do is annoying as well, them you
call them on it and they post links and links from editorials
and stuff about the smallest thing. Anyway I dunno it's late
and I got 4 more hrs of work so I'm just rambling, but kudos
to the guy.

quote:

Originally posted by DevilDogUSMC I skim thru his only because I don't have time to read it AND the links to support his arguements here at work. And to tell you the truth after I skim I realize I've heard them before but they won't change my opinion on the matter.

Ahh, some terrific debating techniques you ascribe to on full display. Excellent work.

quote:

Wish I had time to post links to support my assurtations.

It would certainly help your arguments. You see, in a debating forum such as this, I do my best to support my assertions with evidence. I try hard not to make too many unsupported baseless opinions that I cannot back up.

You should try it once in a while. It might actually help you make a point for a change.

quote:

But we're just expressing our views

You're in the wrong forum for that. The COR is just down the hall.

quote:

and I don't think many of us can change each other's mind about alot.

Actually my mind has been changed quite frequently when I do myself and everyone else a favor and read supporting assertions that counter any argument I make. I'm happy to be proven incorrect, and I'm happy to concede points that run counter to mine.

They just have to be supported with evidence, that's all.

quote:

So I'm not saying I'm right, just that's how I see things and I can always be wrong as I accept I don't know everything about the world but like reading other points of views.

You can be wrong, but only if you choose to read assertions that run counter to yours. The only way you are never wrong is when you choose not to listen, much in the manner as you are proving right now.

quote:

Just alot of the talking points about little things and statistics decades ago gets alittle boring.

Then don't make an argument that is easily refuted next time, champ.

quote:

And all the generalizations others do is annoying as well,

Hi pot, this is kettle. Perhaps you can pinpoint where I made generalizations, especially in the league as yours?

quote:

them you call them on it and they post links and links from editorials and stuff about the smallest thing.

Well if you actually got off your lazy, ignorant ass you'd find that I posted more than just mere editorials - they have facts to support them. Try a few links yourself and find out.

quote:

Anyway I dunno it's late and I got 4 more hrs of work so I'm just rambling, but kudos to the guy.

Umm, I guess thanks.

quote:

Originally posted by DevilDogUSMC I'll be honest, I never read your posts, so long and boring with equally boring links I'm sure. You put alot of effort into them thou, bravo. Anyway, I support their spending on important things like defense. You say it's a bad thing republicans spend more, I say it was necessary because of lack of proper funding by dems and counter their cuts. Fine you can say reagan from 20 years ago as an example of a republican not into tax cuts. But as parties they are the ones more for tax cuts than dems.

If you plug your ears any harder, I'll bet your fingers will touch in the middle of your brain.

hey are they gonna show this on paperview or HBO?

quote:

Originally posted by Kapedan hey are they gonna show this on paperview or HBO?

YouTube

And opus you're wasting your time writing and quoting,
it's too long and boring man j/k lol

Wow, this is so wrong. I can't believe he was offed so quickly.

quote:

Originally posted by Marc Summers I can't believe he was offed so quickly.

Are you honestly that surprised?

I'm extremely disappointed by this, by the way.

Saddam's Engaging Smile


"Middle East Quarterly
Winter 2004

In the course of a long political career, Saddam Hussein met many Western diplomats and emissaries. One of the first was Glencairn Balfour-Paul,[1] who as British ambassador to Iraq initiated a meeting with Saddam in December 1969. The Baath had come to power by coup on July 17, 1968; at that time, Saddam had played a minor role. But he enjoyed the confidence of his fellow Tikriti, Ahmad Hasan al-Bakr, the coup leader who became president in the new regime. In November 1969, Bakr named Saddam as vice-chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council.

Following Saddam's appointment, Balfour-Paul thought it important to take his measure. His dispatch, a gem of British Arabist reporting in the classic style, appears below in its entirety.[2] It provides an early perspective on Saddam's attitudes toward Western oil interests, Soviet-Iraqi relations, communism, and the Palestinian question. Balfour-Paul judged that Saddam stood head and shoulders above other Baathists and was a figure "with whom it would be possible to do business."

In fact, within three years Saddam had engineered the nationalization of Iraqi oil and had concluded a "treaty of friendship and cooperation" with the Soviet Union. Balfour-Paul was expelled from Iraq in 1971.[3]"

�The Editors

quote:

BRITISH EMBASSY BAGHDAD 20 December 1969 J.P. Tripp, Esq.,[4] Near Eastern Department, Foreign & Commonwealth Office, London, S.W.1. Confidential Saddam Hussain Dear Peter, My telegram No. 1032 (on the IPC series)[5] summarised part of the conversation I had with Saddam Hussain on 18 December. In it I said I would be reporting further by bag. 2. Since Saddam's emergence into the limelight last month as Vice-Chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council and recognised heir-apparent of President Bakr,[6] I have naturally wanted to get at him�not least since the Soviet Charg� told me that he at any rate had succeeded in doing so and had found him a "fanatical Ba'athist" without the four-square peasant sincerity of for instance Izzat al-Douri.[7] This seemed encouraging. 3. After no more than a fortnight's prodding in Protocol Department (which is pretty good by local standards for audience even with lesser lights) an appointment came through. My main object was simply to form a first-hand impression of this previously inaccessible Grey Eminence and ascertain, if I could, his personal attitude (which some believe to have decisive weight) on major issues; but since the appointment came up at an interesting stage in the IPC delegation's second visit here, and since IPC affairs were bound to crop up in our conversation (as they unfortunately do in all conversations with leading Iraqis), I discussed with Sutcliffe and Ensor the previous night how far I should associate myself, as it were, with their activities.[8] 4. Saddam's initial demeanour, when he received me (alone) in his modest office in the Presidential Palace, was singularly reserved�perhaps because the species was unfamiliar to him. Indeed, he said nothing at all for about five minutes, fixing me with an impassive stare while I spoke. I told him I was grateful for the opportunity of clearing my mind about one or two aspects of his Government's policy. My impression, I said, was that the present regime had now established itself firmly and confidently in power; and it seemed legitimate to assume that after eighteen months' experience the main lines of their policy would have taken definitive shape. On this assumption, it would help me to present to my Government an accurate picture of Ba'athist thinking if I could have a description of it from the horse's mouth (not the expression I used). In the first place, I was anxious to know how he viewed Iraq's position in the East/West context. Judged by public postures and publicity media, his Government seemed to be veering far over towards the Soviet bloc. Did this represent their real sympathies or their understanding of where their country's interests lay? According to my reading of the published works, Ba'athist social philosophy was in fact much closer to the social philosophy of my own Government (istaghfar Allah)[9] than to that of the Communist world; but his Government seemed bent on giving the opposite impression. I knew of course that the Soviet handling of the Palestine problem had a bearing on the Iraqi Government's attitude to the bloc. I needed no reminding of this and would be glad to take it as read. It was on other issues, perhaps even more important to Iraq in the long term, that I hoped he would give me the benefit of his views. 5. Saddam then broke his silence to say that this was a fair question and he would do his best to answer it. He assumed I was not looking for diplomatic courtesies. He was, despite his recent public appointment, a Party man first and foremost and would like to talk as such without beating about the bush. Firstly, then, it was no good trying to separate the Palestine problem from others since by now it coloured the thinking of all Arabs on all subjects. Britain and the West could not wholly escape the burden of history. Yet, France, though its past standing in the Arab world could not compare with Britain's, had by a few simple gestures (for that was all that was required) acquired the friendship of the Arab world. He would welcome the restoration of warm and meaningful relations with Britain (and with America too for that matter) which would follow if we could only bring ourselves to show a little greater determination over Palestine. Secondly, we were totally wrong if we believed Iraqi Ba'athists to have any natural affinity with the Soviet bloc. Ba'athism had nothing to do with Communism. He well knew that the long-term aims of the Soviet Union were to communize the world and subject it to Muscovite domination. He was aware of the risks involved in Iraq's present close association with the Soviet bloc, which was forced upon it by the central problem of Palestine. He heartily disliked the presence in Iraq of a Communist Party sponsored by Moscow; Western countries did not nowadays try to promote political parties in Iraq in this way. His Government had repeatedly told the Russians that, whatever its relations with the Eastern bloc, it had no intention of turning its back on the West. 6. But as far as Britain itself was concerned, it was not only over the Palestine issue that the Iraqis hoped for a change of heart or at least a fresh initiative. There was an internal issue, of equal importance to Iraq, where he hoped we would prove more helpful. This was over oil and the IPC. In answer to my enquiry, Saddam confirmed that he was well aware of the delegation's current proposals in this field and that the Government was studying them closely. The next part of our conversation was reported fairly fully in paragraph 3 of my telegram under reference; its burden was that he was not yet persuaded that the Company's proposals offered Iraq the most advantageous way of handling their oil affairs or that they definitely represented a concession (tanazul) of substance as well as form. He himself bore no grudge against the IPC and readily admitted that Iraq had profited greatly from its activities; but suspicions were widespread. Many people in Iraq believed that if the British offered you an apple it would prove to be the desert variety (the bitter colocynth). He also said that, the political climate being what it was, if two equally good tenders for a job were put on his desk (one from a British firm and one from, say, Bulgaria), he would opt for the Bulgarian. And he used a number of other metaphors to illustrate the point I assume he was seeking to convey, i.e. that the IPC proposals would have to prove demonstrably better, on close scrutiny, than any possible alternative before the Iraqis would opt for a settlement. I have little doubt that what was in his mind was the risk to which any government in Iraq must now be exposed if it makes a deal with the IPC, namely that the deal would be seized upon by their critics at home and abroad and used as a stick to beat them and unhorse them with. None-the-less, I drew the impression that he was by no means opposed to reaching agreement with the IPC, provided its terms (on the sort of lines now proposed) could be dressed up in such a way that the r�gime could defend itself against any charges of going back on its word or of yielding to imperialist monopoly pressure. I pointed out that acceptance of the Company's offer would not entail renouncing Soviet bloc participation in oil affairs. There was room for them too, if that was what Iraq wanted. 7. Saddam then reverted to his earlier theme (the train of thought was undisguised) and repeated that Iraq had no intention of throwing in its lot with the Soviet bloc. Well before this stage, I ought to explain, his earlier reserve had quite vanished and he was leaning at me over the corner of his desk talking with great warmth and what certainly seemed sincerity. Amongst other expressions he used the familiar proverbial equivalent (the conversation was in Arabic) of frying-pan and fire; and I urged him to stick to the frying-pan. I then made a few observations on the extent to which Iraq had already put itself in pawn to the Soviet Union, and I quoted their total dependence on the latter in respect of military equipment. "It's not quite as bad as that" was Saddam's rejoinder. By now we had long exceeded the half hour officially allotted to me. He walked with me towards the door repeating in earnest terms his hope that Anglo/Iraqi relations would take a real turn for the better, and when I said my final piece (as reported in my telegram) about oil, he stood still for some time nodding his head with that peculiar air of concentration which, it had seemed to me throughout our talk, set him apart from most of his colleagues. Indeed, he struck me as a much more "serious" character than other Ba'athist leaders; and his engaging smile, when he deployed it, seemed part and parcel of his absorption with the subject in hand and not, as with so many of the others, a matter of superficial affability. I should judge him, young as he is, to be a formidable, single-minded and hard-headed member of the Ba'athist hierarchy, but one with whom, if only one could see more of him, it would be possible to do business. It may have been an "act"; but if so, it was a skillful performance for someone with so little experience of the outside world. 8. I enclose a spare copy of this letter in case Oil Department would like one and I am also sending copies to Her Majesty's Representatives at Amman, Beirut, Cairo, Tripoli, Kuwait, Tehran, Jedda, Moscow, Washington and the Political Resident, Bahrain. Yours ever, (Glen) H.G. Balfour-Paul [1] Glencairn Balfour-Paul, British ambassador to Iraq, 1969-71. After service in the Middle East in World War II, he spent nine years in the Sudan political service, and subsequently served as a diplomat in the Middle East, three times as ambassador. He is also the author of The End of Empire in the Middle East (Cambridge, U.K., 1991). [2] The original document is in the Public Record Office, London, file FCO 17/871; and also at http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB...107/iraq02.pdf. [3] Gerald Butt, The Lion in the Sand: The British in the Middle East (London: Bloomsbury, 1995), p. 93. [4] Peter Tripp, head of the Near Eastern Department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, a career Arabist who served throughout the Persian Gulf and later became ambassador to Libya, 1970-74. Ed. [5] IPC: Iraq Petroleum Company; see footnote 8 below. Ed. [6] Ahmad Hasan al-Bakr, conspirator with the Baath party in its July 17, 1968 seizure of power, and president of Iraq, 1968-79, until Saddam forced his resignation. Ed. [7] �Izzat Ibrahim ad-Duri, a participant in the 1968 coup, long-time loyalist of Saddam Hussein. Following the capture of Hussein in December 2003, he became the most-wanted former Iraqi leader. Ed. [8] The IPC, the Iraq Petroleum Company, had been the foreign concessionary for Iraqi oil since the 1920s. By the time of this dispatch, the consortium included British, French, Dutch, and American oil companies. From the 1960s, the IPC clashed with successive Iraqi governments over production levels and revenues. In 1972, Iraq finally nationalized the company. The persons named here as leading an IPC delegation: John Sutcliffe (British Petroleum) and Andrew Ensor (Mobil) Ed. [9] Arabic, "God forgive." Ed.

Saddam is more responsible for the war than Bush.
He tried the world's patience for 8 years by
not complying with resolution after resolution
by the UN. Did he really think we were bluffing
when we gave him the ultimatum? He could have stopped
it but he was a fool... Tired of everyone blaming
Bush but not this idiot...

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Oh and some might say it's the west's fault for backing
him instead of Iran (supported by Soviets) 20 years ago
but that was the lesser of two evils and no one told him
to be some damn ruthless in his rule...

quote:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061230/D8MAV8LG0.html Saddam Hussein Executed for War Crimes BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Saddam Hussein, the shotgun-waving dictator who ruled Iraq with a remorseless brutality for a quarter-century and was driven from power by a U.S.-led war that left his country in shambles, was taken to the gallows and executed Saturday. It was a grim end for the 69-year-old leader who had vexed three U.S. presidents. Despite his ouster, Washington, its allies and the new Iraqi leaders remain mired in a fight to quell a stubborn insurgency by Saddam loyalists and a vicious sectarian conflict. President Bush called Saddam's execution "the kind of justice he denied the victims of his brutal regime." State-run Iraqiya television news reported that Saddam's half-brother Barzan Ibrahim and Awad Hamed al-Bandar, the former chief justice of the Revolutionary Court, also were hanged. However, three officials said only Saddam was executed. "We wanted him to be executed on a special day," National Security adviser Mouwafak al-Rubaie told state-run Iraqiyah. Al-Rubaie said Saddam "totally surrendered" and did not resist. He said a judge read the sentence to Saddam, who was taken in handcuffs to the execution room. When he stood in the execution room, photographs and video footage were taken, al-Rubaie said. "He did not ask for anything. He was carrying a Quran and said: 'I want this Quran to be given to this person,' a man he called Bander," he said. Al-Rubaie said he did not know who Bander was. Mariam al-Rayes, a legal expert and a former member of the Shiite bloc in parliament, told Iraqiya television that the execution "was filmed and God willing it will be shown. There was one camera present, and a doctor was also present there." Al-Rayes, an ally of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, did not attend the execution. She said Al-Maliki did not attend but was represented by an aide. The station earlier was airing national songs after the first announcement and had a tag on the screen that read "Saddam's execution marks the end of a dark period of Iraq's history." The execution was carried out around the start of Eid al-Adha, the Islamic world's largest holiday, which marks the end of the Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca, the hajj. Many Muslims celebrate by sacrificing domestic animals, usually sheep. Sunnis and Shiites throughout the world began observing the four-day holiday at dawn Saturday, but Iraq's Shiite community - the country's majority - was due to start celebrating on Sunday. The execution came 56 days after a court convicted Saddam and sentenced him to death for his role in the killings of 148 Shiite Muslims from a town where assassins tried to kill the dictator in 1982. Iraq's highest court rejected Saddam's appeal Monday and ordered him executed within 30 days. A U.S. judge on Friday refused to stop Saddam's execution, rejecting a last-minute court challenge. Al-Maliki had rejected calls that Saddam be spared, telling families of people killed during the dictator's rule that would be an insult to the victims. "Our respect for human rights requires us to execute him, and there will be no review or delay in carrying out the sentence," al-Maliki's office quoted him as saying during a meeting with relatives before the hanging. Human Rights Watch criticized the execution, calling Saddam's trial "deeply flawed." "Saddam Hussein was responsible for massive human rights violations, but that can't justify giving him the death penalty, which is a cruel and inhuman punishment," said Richard Dicker, director of Human Rights Watch's International Justice Program. The hanging of Saddam, who was ruthless in ordering executions of his opponents, will keep other Iraqis from pursuing justice against the ousted leader. At his death, he was in the midst of a second trial, charged with genocide and other crimes for a 1987-88 military crackdown that killed an estimated 180,000 Kurds in northern Iraq. Experts said the trial of his co-defendants was likely to continue despite his execution. Many people in Iraq's Shiite majority were eager to see the execution of a man whose Sunni Arab-dominated regime oppressed them and Kurds. Before the hanging, a mosque preacher in the Shiite holy city of Najaf on Friday called Saddam's execution "God's gift to Iraqis." "Oh, God, you know what Saddam has done! He killed millions of Iraqis in prisons, in wars with neighboring countries and he is responsible for mass graves. Oh God, we ask you to take revenge on Saddam," said Sheik Sadralddin al-Qubanji, a member of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. On Thursday, two half brothers visited Saddam in his cell, a member of the former dictator's defense team, Badee Izzat Aref, told The Associated Press by telephone from the United Arab Emirates. He said the former dictator handed them his personal belongings. A senior official at the Iraqi defense ministry said Saddam gave his will to one of his half brothers. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media. In a farewell message to Iraqis posted Wednesday on the Internet, Saddam said he was giving his life for his country as part of the struggle against the U.S. "Here, I offer my soul to God as a sacrifice, and if he wants, he will send it to heaven with the martyrs," he said. One of Saddam's lawyers, Issam Ghazzawi, said the letter was written by Saddam on Nov. 5, the day he was convicted by an Iraqi tribunal in the Dujail killings. The message called on Iraqis to put aside the sectarian hatred that has bloodied their nation for a year and voiced support for the Sunni Arab-dominated insurgency against U.S.-led forces, saying: "Long live jihad and the mujahedeen." Saddam urged Iraqis to rely on God's help in fighting "against the unjust nations" that ousted his regime. Najeeb al-Nauimi, a member of Saddam's legal team, said U.S. authorities maintained physical custody of Saddam until the execution to prevent him being humiliated publicly or his corpse being mutilated, as has happened to previous Iraqi leaders deposed by force. He said they didn't want anything to happen to further inflame Sunni Arabs. "This is the end of an era in Iraq," al-Nauimi said from Doha, Qatar. "The Baath regime ruled for 35 years. Saddam was vice president or president of Iraq during those years. For Iraqis, he will be very well remembered. Like a martyr, he died for the sake of his country." Iraq's death penalty was suspended by the U.S. military after it toppled Saddam in 2003, but the new Iraqi government reinstated it two years later, saying executions would deter criminals. Saddam's own regime used executions and extrajudicial killings as a tool of political repression, both to eliminate real or suspected political opponents and to maintain a reign of terror. In the months after he seized power on July 16, 1979, he had hundreds of members of his own party and army officers slain. In 1996, he ordered the slaying of two sons-in-law who had defected to Jordan but returned to Baghdad after receiving guarantees of safety. Saddam built Iraq into a one of the Arab world's most modern societies, but then plunged the country into an eight-year war with neighboring Iran that killed hundreds of thousands of people on both sides and wrecked Iraq's economy. During that war, as part of the wider campaign against Kurds, the Iraqi military used chemical weapons against the Kurdish town of Halabja in northern Iraq, killing an estimated 5,000 civilians. The economic troubles from the Iran war led Saddam to invade Kuwait in the summer of 1990, seeking to grab its oil wealth, but a U.S.-led coalition inflicted a stinging defeat on the Iraq army and freed the Kuwaitis. U.N. sanctions imposed over the Kuwait invasion remained in place when Saddam failed to cooperate fully in international efforts to ensure his programs for creating weapons of mass destruction had been dismantled. Iraqis, once among the region's most prosperous, were impoverished. The final blow came when U.S.-led troops invaded in March 2003. Saddam's regime fell quickly, but political, sectarian and criminal violence have created chaos that has undermined efforts to rebuild Iraq's ruined economy. While he wielded a heavy hand to maintain control, Saddam also sought to win public support with a personality cult that pervaded Iraqi society. Thousands of portraits, posters, statues and murals were erected in his honor all over Iraq. His face could be seen on the sides of office buildings, schools, airports and shops and on Iraq's currency.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.