Saddam Headlines

[SoulKiss]

Originally Posted by Jelster

We end up as much as a dictatorship as those we rise up against..

I thought we were there already

My point is that it wasn't our place to "rise up against" Saddam, or anywhere else.

Their country, their laws, their problem to solve by themselves.

Look at this countries history on human rights - try being a woman at the turn of last century, or black or irish at the middle of it, or gay at the end of it.

We managed to get through those things, and sort it out, why should we force it on other countries.

Its like when we are teenagers and we get told that we should work hard at school and that those years "are the best of our lives" - how many here wish they could go back to those days with what they know now, and how much better it would be. However, everyone of us would remember how we didn't listen, and when you try and tell a kid that now, just like you then the dont listen or understand.

Our way of life isnt that spectacular - old people die because they cant afford to heat their houses, people sleep on the streets, muggers and rapists exsist and get away with it.

Lets clean our own house first before sweeping out others

Tough subject that I am not going to get into, but just to say that we had a couple of Iranians come and work at our lab for a few years. I had some very long conversations with them and they basically said that they didn't like the state of Iran, the way they were ruled, but they also don't want foreign powers wading in and shooting everything up for them. They want to change it all by themselves, even if it takes much longer. When I think about it, even if I don't like Tony Blair, I really wouldn't like the Americans to come over to Britain and bomb places inaccurately to get the odd government building and depose the leader, so i see their point.

Originally Posted by SoulKiss

I thought we were there already

My context was meant as in "we rise above it" (not against it) - Poorly written by myself. I apologise....

.

Originally Posted by Jelster

I can't see how killing him without ever bringing him to stand trial is right.

.

He has been tried, by his own people.

I sit next an Iraqi guy at school and the general feeling from most iraqis (that, obviously, excludes the persecuted minority) is that they'd prefer Sadam to still be in power - Iraq is actually more dangerous for the average man on the street than it was when he was in power.
Something like 1000 iraqis are being killed each week.

I like history and especially English history.

This trial is very similar to Charles I trial and will probably end up the same result.

Saddam's first words were 'who has the power to try me, your head of state...' just like Charles.

Charles was a loser who became a martyr as the axe fell.

Same with Saddam. Stick him in some prison and let him stay there until he dies. At least he won't die at the hands of the victors.

well it was our resposibility for him. Its no secret saddam was placed in power by the americans and british after being trained by the cia. But i do think killing him so publicly achieves nothing.

I read in the independant tpoday that the british and germans and probably a few other countries supplied Saddam with the chemicals nessacery for him to produce his chemical warfare agents...

...so does that make us partly to blame for the atrocities saddam commited?

Matt

Originally Posted by alpinestarhero

I read in the independant

Matt

Originally Posted by The Basket

I like history and especially English history.

This trial is very similar to Charles I trial and will probably end up the same result.

Saddam's first words were 'who has the power to try me, your head of state...' just like Charles.

Charles was a loser who became a martyr as the axe fell.

Same with Saddam. Stick him in some prison and let him stay there until he dies. At least he won't die at the hands of the victors.

Agreed.

Part 2 - Those who signed Charles's death warrant came to a sticky end. On Cromwell's death there was no obvious successor - his son turned out to be unsuitable - weak, vain etc. So, after a lot of political machinations, came about the Restoration of Charles's son, Charles II, in 1660. He had been in exile in France - remember that his mother, Henrietta Maria, was French. Signatories who hadn't died or been murdered in the Interregnum were rounded up in this new political era, and themselves executed as Regicides.

Well history might repeat itself, you never know.

Ed

Originally Posted by hovi5