quote:

Originally posted by DJ Mikey Mike My opinion of sooo many people on here has gone way way down.

+ 1.

Saddam has hardly been an issue in the last two years. Like the insurgency (or al-Qaeda for that matter) has had ANYTHING to do with him.

To expect the insurgency in Iraq to magically end with his death is, well, typical American (and Canadian?) ignorance.


In FACT, while I'm on my high horse, let me point out that Johns Hopkins estimates 655,000 Iraqis have been killed as a direct cause of the conflict in Iraq since the US invaded more or less unilaterally in March of 2003. That's about 300,0000-500,000 MORE than in Darfur during that same period, and the entire world is in agreement that Darfur is a humanitarian disaster of unimaginable scale. In the 24 years that Saddam Hussein was in office, it is estimated that he was responsible for the deaths of 400,000 Iraqis. This no doubt makes him a terrible despot... but is Iraq truly better off?

During the 24 year reign of Saddam, 400,000 died (roughly 16,500/year). During the 3 1/2 years of war/insurgency, as many as 650,000 have died (Tony Blair uses the more conservative figure of 500,000 while George W. Bush still blindly clings to some mystical tally of 45,000 or so). That's roughly 185,000 Iraqi deaths each year since March 19, 2005. You tell me, was Iraq worse off with 16,500 murders by a tyrannical dictator, or by the "freedom and democracy" that brings 185,000 deaths every year (a figure that is increasing as death tolls continue to escalate this month).

Oh, and the sanctions that the United States led? Well, let's just put it this way. Referring to 500,000 deaths attributed to Western sanctions, Secretary of State Madelaine Albright said: "I think that is a very hard choice, but the price, we think, the price is worth it."

One last thing. In the United States, 6 juvenile criminals were executed. None were in Iraq. In the United States, 12% of Congress is female. In Iraq, 8% was under Saddam. In Texas under George W. Bush, the state economy grew 2.9% in 1999. Iraq's grew 18%.


So yeah, what exactly did you people think was going to be accomplished by hanging a man who has had no bearing on this situation for the past three years? Or better yet, by completely destroying a country in order to get to him?

The ignorance.

Sources:
http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthne..._iraq_2006.html
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1114-02.htm
http://www.fff.org/comment/com0311c.asp
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/10/20/iraq.amnesty/
http://www.economist.com/countries/...Economic%20Data

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Lira "Don't believe the infidels! Saddam is alive unless he claims he isn't!"

Bwhahahaa. Well put...

Folks in c0r really need to learn not to comment on issues far above their level of intelligence.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ Mikey Mike My opinion of sooo many people on here has gone way way down.

Not it hasn't. You're smart enough to know not to have that high an opinion of the majority of these folks in the first place

quote:

Originally posted by Caela it's official, as announced by CNN.

Thanks for double checking with CNN - I know nothing is official until it's shown up on CNN.com

___________________
last minute disco dot net

Last edited by RJT on Dec-30-2006 at 09:42

At this point, it's pretty much just for show. I rather liked Hussein; his will shone more brightly than most. But killing him now that he has been removed from power is more akin to putting him out of his misery than serving justice.

jus·tice /ˈdʒʌstɪs/ Pronunciation[juhs-tis]
–noun
1. the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness: to uphold the justice of a cause.
2. rightfulness or lawfulness, as of a claim or title; justness of ground or reason: to complain with justice.
3. the moral principle determining just conduct.
4. conformity to this principle, as manifested in conduct; just conduct, dealing, or treatment.
5. the administering of deserved punishment or reward.



this example of 'justice' seems to fit into definition number 5
ugh
seems lately my fucking country thinks we're the good guys, and therefore everything with do it FOR JUSTICE!!!!WOOO!!!!!!

i'd only like to point out that the first three definitions all point to moral rightness, and in my mind execution is very far from morally right
i mean for fuck's sake, the ten commandments are a load of bullshit for governing how to live, but i would think our president believes in it them, and i can't see how he could possibly justify this.

killing is wrong. PERIOD. THERE IS NO MORE TO THIS FUCKING SENTENCE.

___________________

http://www.youtube.com/mezzir

still wish it was on pay per view. "

is it on youtube yet?

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov + 1. Saddam has hardly been an issue in the last two years. Like the insurgency (or al-Qaeda for that matter) has had ANYTHING to do with him. To expect the insurgency in Iraq to magically end with his death is, well, typical American (and Canadian?) ignorance. In FACT, while I'm on my high horse, let me point out that Johns Hopkins estimates 655,000 Iraqis have been killed as a direct cause of the conflict in Iraq since the US invaded more or less unilaterally in March of 2003. That's about 300,0000-500,000 MORE than in Darfur during that same period, and the entire world is in agreement that Darfur is a humanitarian disaster of unimaginable scale. In the 24 years that Saddam Hussein was in office, it is estimated that he was responsible for the deaths of 400,000 Iraqis. This no doubt makes him a terrible despot... but is Iraq truly better off? During the 24 year reign of Saddam, 400,000 died (roughly 16,500/year). During the 3 1/2 years of war/insurgency, as many as 650,000 have died (Tony Blair uses the more conservative figure of 500,000 while George W. Bush still blindly clings to some mystical tally of 45,000 or so). That's roughly 185,000 Iraqi deaths each year since March 19, 2005. You tell me, was Iraq worse off with 16,500 murders by a tyrannical dictator, or by the "freedom and democracy" that brings 185,000 deaths every year (a figure that is increasing as death tolls continue to escalate this month). Oh, and the sanctions that the United States led? Well, let's just put it this way. Referring to 500,000 deaths attributed to Western sanctions, Secretary of State Madelaine Albright said: "I think that is a very hard choice, but the price, we think, the price is worth it." One last thing. In the United States, 6 juvenile criminals were executed. None were in Iraq. In the United States, 12% of Congress is female. In Iraq, 8% was under Saddam. In Texas under George W. Bush, the state economy grew 2.9% in 1999. Iraq's grew 18%. So yeah, what exactly did you people think was going to be accomplished by hanging a man who has had no bearing on this situation for the past three years? Or better yet, by completely destroying a country in order to get to him? The ignorance.

Best post I've seen in a long time.

cheers

___________________
Mystic Mind - DJ Mixes
http://soundcloud.com/mystic-mind

Facebook page
https://www.facebook.com/DJMysticMind

quote:

Originally posted by Nell is it on youtube yet?

No, the execution itself was not televised (although it will)

And thank God it wasn't, because this would only get worse:

quote:

Insurgency set to outlive Saddam By David Loyn BBC world affairs correspondent The death of Saddam Hussein is unlikely to have the beneficial effect that such a drastic step should have. It was the end of an inevitable process that began when Saddam Hussein was found in a "spider hole" on 14 December 2003, but his capacity to upset the plans of his opponents is as strong in death as in life. Before he fell from power, Saddam Hussein left specific instructions to his supporters. He knew that they could not defeat the American-led invasion force on the conventional battlefield, so he ordered his men to loot and disrupt the civilian infrastructure and join forces with Islamists rebels. Those tactics continue to prevent the effective stabilisation of Iraq, and the insurgency now has a momentum of its own that will outlive Saddam. 'Victor's justice' If anything, his death will tend to strengthen the hand of Sunni insurgents in recruiting people to their cause. They ask: "What do we have to lose?" as they see their Shia rivals running the armed forces and the police. For these hardliners, the death of Saddam is "victor's justice", carried out amid the extraordinary facilities of the high-security, sanitised international Green Zone. The transparency of the trial, every stage of which was broadcast, does not change their view. The new sectarianism, unleashed in earnest after the destruction of the Samarra shrine in February 2006, is now altering the geography of the capital, Baghdad, as militias mark out their zones of influence. The celebrations in Shia areas at the death of Saddam will only make these divisions worse. The celebrations of those who do welcome his death are real of course. No-one can deny the pleasure now felt by many who suffered at the hands of Saddam's tyrannical regime. In particular, there are genuine celebrations among the Marsh Arabs in the south, who had their way of life destroyed in a genocidal frenzy after their failed uprising in 1991, and the Kurds in the north, always threatened by Saddam. Fair trial? But even here, there will be questions over the trial itself. Human Rights Watch, who observed every day of the process along with another NGO, brought out a harsh verdict on the quality of justice in this case. Their conclusion was that this was not a fair trial, and the soundness of the verdict is questionable. In this case, they say "the imposition of the death penalty - an inherently cruel and inhumane punishment - in the wake of an unfair trial is indefensible". They criticised the management of the trial, protection given to witnesses, the lack of material given to the defence (making this a "trial by ambush"), and prejudicial comments made by Iraqi politicians. They also criticised the defence for using the courtroom as a political grandstand. There are also questions over the long and detailed examination of some of the evidence in the Dujail case [for the killing of 148 Shias in the village of that name in the early 1980s], while Saddam's trial for the deaths of far more people in Kurdish areas was rushed through ahead of the execution. Considering that this was the first trial of this scale since the Nuremberg trials at the end of World War II, the disappointment of legal observers that it did not set a higher standard is great. But then in Iraq, nothing has quite turned out as expected.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6212727.stm

___________________
Indiana Clones Upcoming Sets
[ I May Upload Something Someday ]

Just watched the placing of the noose around his neck. He looked pretty calm.

This whole ordeal didn't solve anything. Meh

quote:

Originally posted by RJT Thanks for double checking with CNN - I know nothing is official until it's shown up on CNN.com

a lot of people tend to consider that media always say the truth and will take everything media can say for granted.....

that's why i think u gotta check different sources and various sources of information

i still have in mind this horrible map of france that CNN showed up during the french riots last year and that was shocking considering CNN is internationally world known

___________________
2/09/07 Zabiela @ Pacha..... -confirmed-

erik + andy + marie = united in nerdyness <3

ps :wick sucks dicks !