Lynching

Bluemerle · 05-01-2007, 11:14 AM

A lynching shall go down in history as America's biggest accomplishment in Iraq. So who's next? Who hangs for the hundreds of thousands

Who've died as a direct result of this war and occupation? Bush? Blair? Maliki? Jaffari? Allawi? Chalabi?

http://tinyurl.com/y5b8l6

Short video explains the CIA's role in Saddams rise to power

http://www.ericblumrich.com/thanks.html

jim h · 05-01-2007, 04:52 PM

Can I ask what lynching you are chuntering on about. Saddam Hussein was tried in Iraqi courts and from what I have seen and read he was given a fair trial he was then hung as the law requires in Iraq. The fact that some idiots recorded the event doesnt mean it wasnt correct and deserved.Frankly we were right to go into Iraq and right to depose the Ba'athist clique which were bleeding the country ,were a threat to all neighbouring countries and killed without trial anyone who ooposed them in extremely cruel ways e. Saddam chopped up one senior civil servant who oppposed him into little pieces and then sent his remains home to his wife in a holdall !!!
Where the West has made a mistake was not to think through the consequences of the defeat of the Dictator and as a result factional fighting aided on the sidelines by Iranian interference has bedevilled the whole place/ Where Blair is particularly to blame is his total failure to provide our troops with tools to do the job.
Dont forget over 40 nations are providing military and other assistance in Iraq and that the majority of European countries whole heartedly backed our action. Even the French and Germans agree the intelligence on WMDs was correct, they just opposed because they are anti-UK and anti-USA.

kernow · 05-01-2007, 05:14 PM

I have to say jimh I agree with most of your posting, except I would have liked the allies to have gone right into Iraq and captured Saddam during the first Iraq war! I wonder why the allies didn't?

Hereward77 · 05-01-2007, 06:31 PM

I agree with Enoch Powell during Gulf War I, we should only go to war if British territory is under direct threat from a foreign country. Kuwait was a brutal tyranny in itself, and was historically part of Iraq anyway (the British government stupidly gave the province to the al-Sabah family as an "independent sheikhdom" after WWI, blocking Iraq's access to the Gulf). BTW, the 'prolefeed' tabloids never mentioned Saddam Hussein al-Tikriti when we were backing him.

Britannist · 05-01-2007, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hereward77

I agree with Enoch Powell during Gulf War I, we should only go to war if British territory is under direct threat from a foreign country. Kuwait was a brutal tyranny in itself, and was historically part of Iraq anyway (the British government stupidly gave the province to the al-Sabah family as an "independent sheikhdom" after WWI, blocking Iraq's access to the Gulf). BTW, the 'prolefeed' tabloids never mentioned Saddam Hussein al-Tikriti when we were backing him.

While I sympathise with what Enoch Powell said (above quote) I would just say that in the case of Kuwait we had a direct interest in that Kuwait was/is a British ally and appealed for help. We could not just stand back and watch as tyrant Saddam Hussein gobbled up a major British ally in which thousands of Britons had their homes. I think we were right to help liberate Kuwait in the 1990/1991 Gulf conflict.

Hereward77 · 05-01-2007, 07:10 PM

As I said before, Kuwait was also a dictatorship that we established at an extremely stupid location. It was not worth defending, IMO.

Britannist · 05-01-2007, 08:23 PM

Does it matter how it came about? The nation state of Kuwait is here to stay and I have met Kuwaiti people grateful for the help we gave them.

It remains a key British ally in that part of the world.

And it's alot more friendly to the UK than most EU countries.

Hereward77 · 05-01-2007, 11:53 PM

Well, many thousands have been recruited into al-Qaeda thanks to the US/UK military presence on 'sacred Muslim soil' since 1990. There are millions of Kurds (who really did deserve a state, but instead were gassed by Churchill in 1920!) and Shia Iraqis who are grateful for GWII, but is it worth the sacrifice? And where does this all stop?

Mikeuk · 07-01-2007, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jim h

Can I ask what lynching you are chuntering on about. Saddam Hussein was tried in Iraqi courts and from what I have seen and read he was given a fair trial he was then hung as the law requires in Iraq. The fact that some idiots recorded the event doesnt mean it wasnt correct and deserved.Frankly we were right to go into Iraq and right to depose the Ba'athist clique which were bleeding the country ,were a threat to all neighbouring countries and killed without trial anyone who ooposed them in extremely cruel ways e. Saddam chopped up one senior civil servant who oppposed him into little pieces and then sent his remains home to his wife in a holdall !!!
Where the West has made a mistake was not to think through the consequences of the defeat of the Dictator and as a result factional fighting aided on the sidelines by Iranian interference has bedevilled the whole place/ Where Blair is particularly to blame is his total failure to provide our troops with tools to do the job.
Dont forget over 40 nations are providing military and other assistance in Iraq and that the majority of European countries whole heartedly backed our action. Even the French and Germans agree the intelligence on WMDs was correct, they just opposed because they are anti-UK and anti-USA.

It was indeed a lynching conducted by a puppet government following a showtrial by a kangaroo court.

The scum who killed Saddam Hussein would still be cowering in their sewers if it weren't for the war of aggression conducted by the Americans in revenge for the supposed attempt to bump off Bush senior.

kernow · 07-01-2007, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikeuk

It was indeed a lynching conducted by a puppet government following a showtrial by a kangaroo court.

The scum who killed Saddam Hussein would still be cowering in their sewers if it weren't for the war of aggression conducted by the Americans in revenge for the supposed attempt to bump off Bush senior.

Mikeuk, Do you think Saddam was innocent of all those crimes he was supposed to have committed against his own people and should not have been executed?

Or do you think even if he had committed those crimes, he still shouldn't have been executed?

05-01-2007, 11:14 AM	#1 (permalink)
Bluemerle Uber Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Dorset. Posts: 3,252	Lynching A lynching shall go down in history as America's biggest accomplishment in Iraq. So who's next? Who hangs for the hundreds of thousands Who've died as a direct result of this war and occupation? Bush? Blair? Maliki? Jaffari? Allawi? Chalabi? http://tinyurl.com/y5b8l6 Short video explains the CIA's role in Saddams rise to power http://www.ericblumrich.com/thanks.html

05-01-2007, 06:31 PM	#4 (permalink)
Hereward77 Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 1,159	I agree with Enoch Powell during Gulf War I, we should only go to war if British territory is under direct threat from a foreign country. Kuwait was a brutal tyranny in itself, and was historically part of Iraq anyway (the British government stupidly gave the province to the al-Sabah family as an "independent sheikhdom" after WWI, blocking Iraq's access to the Gulf). BTW, the 'prolefeed' tabloids never mentioned Saddam Hussein al-Tikriti when we were backing him. __________________ "The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao's leadership is one of the most important and successful in history." David Rockefeller, New York Times, August 10, 1973

05-01-2007, 07:10 PM	#6 (permalink)
Hereward77 Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 1,159	As I said before, Kuwait was also a dictatorship that we established at an extremely stupid location. It was not worth defending, IMO. __________________ "The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao's leadership is one of the most important and successful in history." David Rockefeller, New York Times, August 10, 1973

05-01-2007, 08:23 PM	#7 (permalink)
Britannist Uber Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: London Posts: 22,896	British-UK friendship Does it matter how it came about? The nation state of Kuwait is here to stay and I have met Kuwaiti people grateful for the help we gave them. It remains a key British ally in that part of the world. And it's alot more friendly to the UK than most EU countries.

05-01-2007, 11:53 PM	#8 (permalink)
Hereward77 Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 1,159	Well, many thousands have been recruited into al-Qaeda thanks to the US/UK military presence on 'sacred Muslim soil' since 1990. There are millions of Kurds (who really did deserve a state, but instead were gassed by Churchill in 1920!) and Shia Iraqis who are grateful for GWII, but is it worth the sacrifice? And where does this all stop? __________________ "The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao's leadership is one of the most important and successful in history." David Rockefeller, New York Times, August 10, 1973

05-01-2007, 04:52 PM	#2 (permalink)
jim h Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 361	Can I ask what lynching you are chuntering on about. Saddam Hussein was tried in Iraqi courts and from what I have seen and read he was given a fair trial he was then hung as the law requires in Iraq. The fact that some idiots recorded the event doesnt mean it wasnt correct and deserved.Frankly we were right to go into Iraq and right to depose the Ba'athist clique which were bleeding the country ,were a threat to all neighbouring countries and killed without trial anyone who ooposed them in extremely cruel ways e. Saddam chopped up one senior civil servant who oppposed him into little pieces and then sent his remains home to his wife in a holdall !!! Where the West has made a mistake was not to think through the consequences of the defeat of the Dictator and as a result factional fighting aided on the sidelines by Iranian interference has bedevilled the whole place/ Where Blair is particularly to blame is his total failure to provide our troops with tools to do the job. Dont forget over 40 nations are providing military and other assistance in Iraq and that the majority of European countries whole heartedly backed our action. Even the French and Germans agree the intelligence on WMDs was correct, they just opposed because they are anti-UK and anti-USA.

05-01-2007, 05:14 PM	#3 (permalink)
kernow Uber Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 5,182	I have to say jimh I agree with most of your posting, except I would have liked the allies to have gone right into Iraq and captured Saddam during the first Iraq war! I wonder why the allies didn't?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode