Saddam's sons killed

Another show of America's strength and will! We want it, we get it...just a matter of time

Heh, just like Vietnam.

I have to admit, it makes me very sad to hear such jubilation over the deaths of anyone. Even if they were evil incarnate, it's ghoulish to celebrate deaths.

(speaking of the news reports, which seem to actually be GLEEFUL!)

I agree Suzanne, killing doesn't achieve anything.

Quote:
"We've used multiple sources to identify the individuals," he said, adding that the bodies were in an identifiable condition.

wow i am surprised they didn't put a picture with them tied on the hood of a humvey. I agree with Suzanne death should never be celebrated

While I agree that death should not be celebrated (most of the time anyway) I have to say that I am glad that those awful men got what they deserved. I would rather see them dead than allowed to continue the horrible things that they have done to people over the years.

I guess what I am saying is.....justice served!!!:batman:

i agree, we are better off without them.
Here's a special card for their dad sorry

I agree with Sonia. They got what they deserved.

Question is, what happens once Bush gets Saddam and Osama Bin Laden? What then?

That's just cold. Judge and jury is a dangerous role.

Indeed, what then. By the time that happens, the Taliban will be totally back in power in Afghanistan (oh yes, did you know the US is negotiating with them?).

What then? I honestly hope they're killed.

I know it's not widely accepted, but I'm in support of capital punishment (death penalty). And from what I've heard in the past, if Saddam or Osama were to be tried in an international court, it is unlikely they would receive a death penalty. Why? Because many countries do not support such a penalty. But IMO, they're actions warrant the death penalty.

Violence never solves many problems IMHO, it just creates more violence :S

Quote: Violence never solves many problems IMHO, it just creates more violence

Quite true Renegade, and by charging around the world throwing our combined weight around we make ourselves no better than the "terrorists" we seek to stop.

Yes, exactly! Humans are at war with them selves not with one another.

Quote: Originally posted by Renegade
Violence never solves many problems...

with the exception perhaps of facism, genocide, totalitarianism...

I'm curious, what would your recourse be if tomorrow, a ruthless dictator siezed the reigns of power in New Zealand and began indiscriminate killings, stripping away of your rights and freedoms, etc?

Passive resistance? Ask the Jews how well that has worked out for them in the past. Negotiate to share the land? Ask a Native American about their share now.

Count on your neighbours? Well, if they are truly pacifists, they might opt for appeasement which loosely translates to "let them take my neighbour and hope like hell that it is enough for them"

It is always easier to be an advocate of non-violence from the safety and security of a non-violent corner of the world.

Don't get me wrong. I'm no warmonger and 20-30 years ago I would have been expressing similar sentiments to those above. But the older I get, the more trite these things sound to me.

What's the quote? I'm sure I'm paraphrasing...

"All that is required for evil to flourish is for good men to stand by and do nothing."

Let's look at it on a more personal level:

If a madman broke in to your home with the intent to rape and murder your wife, your daughter, your sister and you stood there holding a loaded revolver - would violence solve anything?

No, violence will not solve anything in that situation, either for me holding the gun or the mad-man who has entered the house.

The trick is to make the mad-man understand this, preferably by making sure he was nurtured by his parent(s), taught correctly in school etc. This raises two points:
1. The cause of the mans actions is not only his responsibility, but the responsibility of everyone he has learnt from and therefore society as a whole (remember who put Saddam in power?).
2. If we as nations condone violence as a means to solve issues, we will only be teaching more madmen that violence is acceptable.

Quote: Originally posted by JeevesBond
No, violence will not solve anything in that situation, either for me holding the gun or the mad-man who has entered the house.

The trick is to make the mad-man understand this, preferably by making sure he was nurtured by his parent(s), taught correctly in school etc. This raises two points:
1. The cause of the mans actions is not only his responsibility, but the responsibility of everyone he has learnt from and therefore society as a whole (remember who put Saddam in power?).
2. If we as nations condone violence as a means to solve issues, we will only be teaching more madmen that violence is acceptable.

So you would stand there and explain this philosophy, point by point, as your loved ones were ravaged? I don't disagree with your arguments as a means to prevent tomorrow's madmen but they do nothing to deal with today's.

Quote: I'm curious, what would your recourse be if tomorrow, a ruthless dictator siezed the reigns of power in New Zealand and began indiscriminate killings, stripping away of your rights and freedoms, etc?

i agree with your post taff but what that kind of person was to be elected by american what would the world become.

i look at it this way, a simple way, they chose their way of life, they murdered, raped, and killed children, end of story, they desearve what they got, as would we if we did it.

No I would not stand by whilst my loved ones were ravaged, I would take action, but that would not involve killing someone.

The madmen of tomorrow are formed by our actions as a society today, particularly in impoverished states our countries are quite willing to exploit to increase our companies profit margins.

If we deal with things correctly today there will be no madmen tomorrow.

Wow, I love a good argument

Let's just make sure we're arguing about things, not slamming each other (so far so good!)

My main issue with this news of the deaths of these two men (and one of their teenaged sons), is that people were cheering, gloating, celebrating deaths.

It makes me indescribably sad to see anyone cheering the deaths of another. Sombre acknowledgement is one thing. Hoping it's for the best is one thing. But cheering.

***

To the hypothetical threat to my family, I've been in situations where it was fight or flight, and violence only made it worse. Violence escalates easily. There are *many* ways to take action without killing someone, and also without violence. Front-line workers here (medical, social services, police, fire protection, et cetera) are trained in these techniques. Firearms, are a LAST resort. I think that policy would have more success on the world stage as well.

Keep the Wild Wild West Meets The Terminator stuff for the movies.

Quote: No I would not stand by whilst my loved ones were ravaged, I would take action, but that would not involve killing someone.

I have a really hard time understanding how you can say this but I respect your opinion on this issue.

Me, I would shoot the poo out of someone if I were in this position. You can't reason with crazy people, murders. Granted each situation will be different but many times it is either you or them. Dead. They don't enter your home to "chat". They are coming after something, someone and will do anything to see that it gets done AND that they get away whatever the consequences.

Quote: If we deal with things correctly today there will be no madmen tomorrow.

Life doesn't work this way. There will always....ALWAYS be ruthless crazies out there for as long as this earth is here. It is not possible to rid our societies of these people totally.

I am with Suzanne about the cheering, gloating and celebrating deaths. This only brings us down to the level of those who cheered the falling of the World Trade Center and other disasters and terrors of the like. But you can bet I was saying to myself, "Thank goodness they got them." Because if they hadn't, they (uday and qusay) would have surely seen to it that someone, possibly in your neck of the woods, experienced mass terror. Don't ya think???

I've just read through these posts and I wanted to add my own £1.52!

I don't know where this quote was from but it's "Those who live by the sword, die by the sword" Saddam's sons made a concious decision to rape, mutilate, kill and generally be tinpot dictators like their father through their own choice. Therefore, to have their liberty and lives stripped from them doesn't raise one bit of sympathy from me.

When the forces attacked they were responding to small arms fire and were in their rights to defend themselves. Had the son's come out without violence they would still be alive and could be tried. They mad a choice again of their own free will and suffered the consequences.

In response to the madman question I would without doubt defend my family and myself by shooting the loon. OK I'd shoot him in the leg or even between but I would take the action necessary to stop him.

Justice in the UK has, for the last few years, strated to swing to the criminal rather than the victim. There's not a day goes by that I don't hear of a burgalr sueing because he geot beaten breaking into a house. Just today on our local radio I heard of an inmate who is sueing scottish authorities as he claims being locked up is making him depressed! And yuo know what? He'll probably win. What about the victims of his crime? Will they be compensated? Will they see beyond the depression? I think not....

Live by the sword and die by the sword....Make the choice and if you don't wan't to face the consequences of your actions then the choice is obvious.

Well there is no guarantee that killing two people (and a 14 year old boy and bodyguard?) will prevent future terrorism. In this case I think Jeeves has a better idea. There is no support for the idea that you can kill people into not being terrorists, and a lot to support the opposite.

Sure they could have done terrible, horrible things in the future, but lets not go there! After all, I might as well, if my path changes. Are you going to kill me now just in case? If so, there won't be anyone left. Ideologies aside, we're all capable of violence given the right situations and motivations and if we start pre-emptively "neutralizing" people for that future, then who is exempt? No one.

By all means hold people accountable for what they have done, but not for what they might do in the future. For what MAY happen, we can engage in better, less violent measures. For what has happened, we can follow the established codes of law and responsibility. For what IS happening, well that may (MAY) require the use of force.

Re: Uday and Qusay
What would you have preferred happen? That we sit here and cry that someone who killed/raped/etc thousands or more is dead now? Should we put them on trial where there is a reasonable chance they could get off at trial or escape later?

Re: person attacking your family
I think I'd sit them down calmly and have a nice cup of tea and ask them questions about their life. Because this will certainly show them that I am a good person and I will find that they are too.
I might pay for them to go to a rehab center too. Because they deserve it for being such a horrible person, they deserve a second chance to be paid for by me.
Right.
Mmhm that makes sense.
What does make sense? Shoot them. Eliminate the threat. If you eliminate the threat, there is no possibility of evil.
I'm not going to reply to anyone who replies to this, because it's just going to be liberal canadians, US left-coasters and other people with whom I don't get along.
Don't take it personally, but that's just how I feel, and I'm glad that 2 evil men are gone, never to return.
Good day

And yes, I think they made their choice to stand and fight. I have no quibble with how they died, exactly (well, mostly). It's the figurative (and possibly literal, as there is a call for photos of their dead bodies to be publicly shown) holding of the heads of the dead above the crowd bit that upsets me.

Also, I really hope we're not all suddenly trusting the media and governments of the world who have been manipulating the news for years? A little bit of skepticism is a good thing, lol. I would like to see evidence of their wrongs, though I do not doubt they exist.

Nike_guy_man, no personal shots. You can consider this a warning.

1 thing I forgot
Mark, clarify what you mean by saying WE killed them
Sure, your troops and my troops killed them, but no Canadian, French, German, New Zealand, the rest of the world (excluding Britain and Australia) were involved
They didn't want to be involved, they don't get to claim credit

I didn't mean anything specific by "we". It could be "we Americans", or "we, the good guys."

And hey, use "left-wing".. I live on the west coast, and I'm republican.

Re: Personal threat
I'd shoot.

And just so people don't forget, Uday has been compared to Hitler in his brutality.

Re: Violence solves nothing
I disagree.

mark, you hit the clown on the nose

Quote: Violence solves nothing
I disagree.

Thats all that needs to be said.

Now, I am not taking shots at anyone, just standing up for "us Americans". That being said:

Q: Has your country been attacked by a group of a few men, who knew only false-ities about your country, and consequently thousands died?
A: Not unless you live in America

Q: Does more than half of the world hate you, most of whom you support not only financially, but in human/food aid as well?
A: Not unless you live in America

Q: Does your country try to end, prevent, solve, etc. as many conflicts as possible, and still be hated on for being a war-mongerer, violent, and "in oppositition of" your god?
A: Again, not unless you live in America

When people understand how much Americans/America is hated on, when we only try to help, they will then understand why we "pre-emptively" strike. Afgahnistan was not "pre-emptive", the only one so far has been Iraq. People talk about Iran, Egypt, Korea, etc. as being next, but nothing has happened. We have attacked two countries in our ENTIRE history as a "union of states", and not without good reason. Can you say this about England? Japan? Germany?

Need I say more?

Actually, I'd prefer you said less, or framed it in a non-confrontational way. Please do not escalate this into a discussion on whether the US is good or not.

lol sorry...i wasn't trying to be confrontational...i just get tired of it being the US' fault, whether or not we are good

I don't think anyone was saying that, just discussing whether violence is a good solution to violence. Let's hope, anyway.

Quote: Originally posted by Eskater05
mark, you hit the clown on the nose

That's the last time he'll smurk at me.

Quote: Originally posted by Eskater05
We have attacked two countries in our ENTIRE history as a "union of states", and not without good reason.

Spain
Korea
Guatemala
Cuba
Vietnam
Cambodia
Laos
Chile
Libya
Nicaragua
El Salvador
Grenada
Panama
Yugoslavia
Afghanistan
Iraq

Imo, Korea and Yugoslavia were justified. But the total is more than two by my count.

The number also depends on how you define "attack". I think everyone would agree that attacking Germany in WW2 was justified. Beyond that is personal opinion, I think.

and let's not forget the civil war so the U.S. would have to be in that list too

*chortle* And don't forget Canada!

The then-US decided to invade the then-Canada (attempted repeatedly, failed repeatedly, repeatedly being thricely) in the War of 1812. Many many moons ago. We're tougher than we look, or we were, lol... Here's one link: http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/today/jun18.html -- it even started on my birthday, isn't that a kicker!

I agree with Mark on that point, though history may support that some of those skirmishes were instigated by one or the other side. I don't think there are any blameless governments. It's easy in hindsight to see where things went off the rails, but not always easy to see when it's happening, especially if there are "vested interests" on the part of any country involved, and I can't imagine a situation devoid of that bias!

I'm really tempted to blow off, concerning escators post but i wont. We all have different opinions of the way things should be done, thats no bad thing.

Quote: Originally posted by Mark Hensler
The number also depends on how you define "attack". I think everyone would agree that attacking Germany in WW2 was justified.

I'm defining "attack" in terms of dead and wounded foreign nationals, the definition we used on September 11.

There are a couple of dozen "interventions" not on that list, often involving the installation of dictatorships. I don't believe the American people would take kindly to such action directed against themselves.

I didn't include Germany and Japan on that list because those nations either attacked or declared war on the US.

In seeking to understand why America is hated by so many around the world, you might want to examine the way many of her citizens rewrite history and exhibit a rather serious level of contempt for others.

The most likely result of having a loaded weapon in your house is that you or another family member will be shot.

i joined this thread kinda late but have some opinions myself and will share them anyways, the comment regarding whether or not "bin laden" or "Godam insane" (hussein) would get the death penalty or not, well even if they did receive only a life sentence am i certain that any american soldier would risk life imprisoment to assasinate either one in the name of "justice",I would risk life imprisoment to do this. it is my opinion that every american would want these 2 dead and if they dont think that they should they should go back to videos of 911, take another look at the horror that happened that day, look at the families and what this day did to them, and take a look into the future and imagine what these deliverors of death can do to you, me, or anyone around you that you love. The only way to prevent these people from attacking again is to end there lives and end it fast, every minute they are alive is another minute they have to plan there next attack on you, an innocent bistander. I wish only absolute certain death for these people.
I too am not trying to be confrontational, these are my opinions, i am very narrow minded when it comes to this topic, because like many of you I also lost someone in these attacks. I lost my high school sweetheart, life partner, soul mate, and the mother of my child. I may be narrow minded, but I do enjoy a good debate every now and then.
Please if you have a different opinion than me I would like to engage in a friendly debate with you.
Thank you for hearing my side of this.

Hey R.Scott

I'm certain every member of this forum has the greatest sympathy for your loss, but two things come to mind.

First, the former Iraqi gov't (which came to power as the result of US intervention to overthrow one that preceded it) likely had nothing to do with the September 11 attacks. That regime was highly secular and had little or no tolerance for radical Islamic fundamentalism.

Secondly, the desire for revenge you express, while understandable, only feeds the cycle of violence that has taken the lives of so many other innocents around the world. Mmy feeling is that we need to do what we can to stop or at least slow down that process.

It may be painful for you to read the following, but note the reference to "reactions and reciprocal actions" and "bombing houses that shelter old people, women and children with US-made aircraft."

http://www.couriermail.news.com.au/printpage/0,5942,5483611,00.html

I think OBL is a murderer. I don't think we should make it easy for him to recruit supporters by playing into his hands. "Justice for all" means not only going after criminals but also working to protect those like your loved one whose life was tragically cut short.

Going back to the last page...Why will the world always be filled with crazies? Because we believe it will, because we have no belief in ourselves, or trust in each other; if the human race stopped wasting effort judging each other and used that energy on trying to understand one-another there would be no "crazies."
Imagine you are the only person in the worlds population who has your beliefs, suddenly you are the one who is crazy; using violence as a resolution makes you a very dangerous person. History is written by the winner, and the truth is subjective.

1. Who made the decision to bomb civilian centres in Germany during WWII? The British & Canadians, leading to the greatest civilian casualties in any war ever.
2. Being president in America can be bought (although this has yet to be proved conclusively).
3. EPZ's (Export Processing Zone). Anybody here wear Nike shoes? Well the workers at the Wellco factory in China have to work 77-84 hours per week, in 11 to 12 hour shifts (7 days a week). They have to suffer corporal punishment if they are found talking, also women are fined for being pregnant, or being over 25. For all of this they are paid $0.16 an hour.
4. Enough food is produced to feed everyone in the world, yet people are still starving.
...Just a few examples of our lives from a different perspective.

I don't find it too suprising when these people react in a violent manner, from their point-of-view we are unjustifiably rich while they have nothing. However their actions should not be condoned, neither should ours...Violence merely breeds more violence.

The resolution is sensibly talking things through, just like we are doing here - we all respect each others opinions, and minds that are open to learning (and hopefully change).

I'm sorry R.Scott that you lost someone on Sept 11th, that was deeply tragic. I must disagree - but I do understand your feelings - that we should end these peoples lives, one persons villain is anothers martyr.

Man, I meant to avoid this thread like the plague and was sorry I couldn't resist the urgre to post in the first place.

Quote: The most likely result of having a loaded weapon in your house is that you or another family member will be shot.

I just wanted to be crystal clear on something - I am not a gun advocate, quite the opposite actually. I was just looking for a simple analogy and the gun was merely meant to symbolize your ability to assert "power" in the situation.

what else...

Quote: I don't find it too suprising when these people react in a violent manner, from their point-of-view we are unjustifiably rich while they have nothing.

For the record, Bin Laden and Hussein are both millionaires but generally, your point is sound.

Quote: The then-US decided to invade the then-Canada (attempted repeatedly, failed repeatedly, repeatedly being thricely) in the War of 1812.

Don't believe everything they teach in school. Did they actually teach this? It's been too long for me. 1812 was 55 years before Canada even became a country and the US was at war with Great Britain not us. While I'm sure that we fought valiantly, we *were* supported by possibly the most powerful military and naval force of the time.

It wasn't just "little ol' us"

That's why I put it as "then-" countries. And no, that's what the US history books teach, ours just refer to the region that is now part of our country.

And hey! Little 'ol us it was. In as much as the US attacked the colony to distract the mother country, as it were.

Not getting into the France/Britain/US mayhem before and after!

Quote:
I too am not trying to be confrontational, these are my opinions, i am very narrow minded when it comes to this topic, because like many of you I also lost someone in these attacks. I lost my high school sweetheart, life partner, soul mate, and the mother of my child. I may be narrow minded, but I do enjoy a good debate every now and then.

My deepest sympathy go out to you for your loss.

This thread could probably go on forever, nothing will change unfortunatly, i think it went slighty off topic, in that we who applauded or agreed that the world is better off with out them, not wether killing as revenge or penalty is right or wrong.

Hey, that's the way us humans like to have conversations. We never end up talking about the same subject we started with; since this is just general chat we probably shouldn't worry about going off-topic

[EDIT]
Good point Taff, do any of us know what the motivations of Bin Laden or Hussain are? IMO this is half the problem.

IMO these discussions are totally pointless. Every day thousands of discussions start on similair subjects and they all end the same way - not very nice. Most of us want to be left alone to live our lives the way we want to with our friends and family without having to worry about war, terrorism, poor economy, etc but that's not how things work. If Bush, Bin Ladin, Saddam, (or anyone else...) decide to attack a country/group for whatever reason we all get affected (more or less) by their actions, innocent people always die. So why do I think these discussions are pointless? Because hardly anyone of us is objective. If I was American I would probably want Bush to kill all Arabs (which I'm sure many Americans consider to be terrorists) for what they did to US. If I was an Arab I would probably support Bin Ladin because of everything US has done to middle east (and so many other countries). The sad part is that none of us had a choice to pick if we wanted to be born American, Arab, Chinese, rich, poor or anything else. We have to live with what we've been dealt (good or bad). Again, most of us just want to be left alone to live our lives. Sitting here and pointing fingers at eachother doesn't do anyone any good, it is just an endless circle of irritation.

Newtons third law of Motion:
"For every action there is a reation"

Now these laws were ment to be for motion and kenetics but they are very applicable to Humans too.

What ever we do, people are going to hate us for it.

If "we" kill Bin Ladin and Husain, then that will only create more hate, on the other hand, if we don't, then we still get hate. There is no right or wrong way to look at things, only different ways, if we all learn to realise that is not a matter of being right or but but a matter of perspective, then a lot of problems will be solved.

The great paradox however is in life itself.

Hopefully discussions like this will help people see that as much as their own perspective seems to be "the truth", there is a larger, more complex truth out there that encompasses many different perspectives, including some that are directly in conflict (i.e. the more powerful country is helpful, the more powerful country is harmful). Despite being in apparent conflict, they are part of the larger truth.

That's why I'm going to repeat an encouragement for everyone to keep the peace here, and not make it personal. We are not our countries, but we are a part of them. Respect and consideration goes a long way, thank you for keeping this discussion on balance!

Oh! I was watching the news last night and reading after the release of the photos of the dead men, and there was an Iraqi barber (I think?) commenting disappointedly that he'd never seen anyone personally cheering for death.

It was a relief to hear that, frankly. There were those shaking their heads, those doubting the photos were of the people the US claims, those cheering the deaths, those calling it a political triumph, those hoping the deaths would be demoralizing... Far more than one perspective, and a welcome change from the single-viewpoint news reporting. This seems more genuine.

I've heard that the US government may allow the press access to the bodies so more pictures/video could be taken to sway the opinion of those still doubting the validity of the bodies' identity.

Any thoughts on this? Is it too far, or necessary?

Quote: Originally posted by Mark Hensler
I've heard that the US government may allow the press access to the bodies so more pictures/video could be taken to sway the opinion of those still doubting the validity of the bodies' identity.

Any thoughts on this? Is it too far, or necessary?

It's been done - images have been on CNN intermittently all day.

Personally, I don't know how effective this will be. I don't have any problems with the photos myself really although I'm sure they'd offend some. The problem is that I don't think it'll sway many people. Those who doubt will be unlikely to be convinced by more photos (although I admit that the resemblence is much stronger now that the corpses are shaven) and those who believe aren't really in need of further proof.

I think all the proof in the world from the US won't sway those who think it's a conspiracy. An independent DNA result, maybe. Public viewing, possibly (though I can't imagine the security issues involved in that one).

I really don't think they should keep showing the dead bodies on TV.

What they should do is have several representatives from various Iraqi communities view the bodies and when they are convinced then they can go back and tell their own people that it is them.

I just think the Iraqi people are leary of Americans so the news coming from their own would be more appropriate.

Good idea, Sonia. I hadn't thought of that.