We've Beaten Saddam Up...

[Don Roley]

he claims to have the marks, if he does, let us see them.

If he does, we need to do somthing about that. If he doesnt... well...

If he doesn't, it will not matter to his target audience. As stated before, he is just taking advantage of all the media attention right now on torture.

There are large groups of people in the middle East that only need a thin excuse to hate America even more. They will not consider the fact that no marks have been shown to think that he never had them. Rather, they will think that Saddam blurted out the truth on live TV, and then later the Americans made sure he could not show any marks. They do control him and media access after all.

Sound like I am smoking crack? Take a look at www.Memri.org to see what type of weird conspiracy theory is given credence by mainstream media in that part of the world. After a lifetime of that, nothing can convince most of them that the US is anything less than a spawn of Satan.

Or you can remember the way the majority of people in that part of the world said there was no proof for Osama Bin Laden being behind 9-11. So we find and air a tape where he takes credit for it in a conversation. Result- people start saying that the tape was made by the CIA and still believe that the US staged the whole thing to justify a war against muslims.

This target audience will just take his word on this even if they don't believe anything else he says.

 

[Marginal]

You'd think if Saddam had been beaten, we'd have detailed, explicit information on where the WMD's are, and how he disposed of them.

 

[mantis]

no way we could have beaten saddam up
no way in heck
we're a democracy
we dont do abu ghraib
everything we've said in the past couple of years is true
we're very humane, and EVERYBODY loves us
no way
i dont believe that mad man!

 

[sgtmac_46]

no way we could have beaten saddam up
no way in heck
we're a democracy
we dont do abu ghraib
everything we've said in the past couple of years is true
we're very humane, and EVERYBODY loves us
no way
i dont believe that mad man!

If you did, you'd be a fool.

 

[Xequat]

I agree that we should not torture for vindictive reasons as mentioned before. That would sink us to a level where we don't want to be. However, I think that it's completely idiotic to both have a no-torture policy and announce it to the world. By doing those things, you are telling the enemy that once they are captured, they have no reason whatsoever to cooperate. I'm not a fan of torture (although I hardly consider having a hot female soldier rub up against me and put women's clothes on me torture...degredation is not torture), but if we capture al-Zarqawi and he has information on the next civilian target, then it should be completely up to him whether or not he gets tortured. If he cooperates, he doesn't get tortured. If he resists, he has to believe that we are willing to get our hands dirty to get the info out of him, for example. Even if we do have a no-torture policy, we sure as hell shouldn't announce it to the world, unless, of course, we actually are allowed to torture and we are just saying that we don't to lull the enemy into a false sense of security or something. Announcing that policy is kind of like saying that if someone commits a crime and drives off, the police won't chase them because someone might get hurt. That sounds great because high-speed chases are dangerous, but all that tells the bad guys is that once they make it to their cars, they got away with it. It's astoundingly bad strategy.

 

[mantis]

i dont appreciate being called a 'fool' when discussing things
next time you post be polite

 

[Ray]

If we did beat him up, then we didn't do a good enough job of it.

 

[mantis]

If we did beat him up, then we didn't do a good enough job of it.

lol
good one
but to me the point isnt exactly a matter of did we beat him or not..
the question is really is this the democracy we preach and want to impose, even forcefully, on others?

 

[Marginal]

I agree that we should not torture for vindictive reasons as mentioned before. That would sink us to a level where we don't want to be. However, I think that it's completely idiotic to both have a no-torture policy and announce it to the world. By doing those things, you are telling the enemy that once they are captured, they have no reason whatsoever to cooperate. I'm not a fan of torture (although I hardly consider having a hot female soldier rub up against me and put women's clothes on me torture...degredation is not torture), but if we capture al-Zarqawi and he has information on the next civilian target, then it should be completely up to him whether or not he gets tortured.

Despite the fact that torture is known for producing unreliable information?

 

[mantis]

speaking of unreliable information will only give us headache when we talk about iraq.. since day 1

 

[sgtmac_46]

i dont appreciate being called a 'fool' when discussing things
next time you post be polite

Nobody called you a fool, you said you didn't believe Saddam. I merely pointed out that you WOULD be a fool, if you DID. Unless you were being sarcastic and did believe Saddam...then that's your problem....

It wouldn't be my fault if someone decided that they were simply going to take any claim made by a megalomaniac, who has tortured thousands of men, women and children WITH HIS OWN hands, at face value.

 

[mantis]

Nobody called you a fool, you said you didn't believe Saddam. I merely pointed out that you WOULD be a fool, if you DID. Unless you were being sarcastic and did believe Saddam...then that's your problem....

It wouldn't be my fault if someone decided that they were simply going to take any claim made by a megalomaniac, who has tortured thousands of men, women and children WITH HIS OWN hands, at face value.

seems it's very hard to convince you that those names and labels arent too cool when it comes to debates. but alright, i'll just pretend you are being "civilized" your own way!
'WITH HIS OWN' hands?
may i ask how do you know?

 

[sgtmac_46]

seems it's very hard to convince you that those names and labels arent too cool when it comes to debates. but alright, i'll just pretend you are being "civilized" your own way!
'WITH HIS OWN' hands?
may i ask how do you know?

I'm glad you asked, Mantis. Saddam Hussein started out his career, at age 21, as an assassin for the Ba'athist party. His first act? The assassination of his brother-in-law, who was a leading communist activist.

It was Saddam Hussein's efficiency in the area of torture that got him attention from the higher ups in the Ba'athist party. In 1968 General Bakr named Saddam Hussein Deputy Chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council, in charge of 'Internal Security' for the Ba'athist regime.

It was at this post that Saddam Hussein personnally handled the torture of large numbers of opponents of the Ba'athist party. He occupied this post for the next 10 years.

After Saddam became president, he no longer had a real need to take a hands on approach to torture, but everyone has to have a hobby.

http://www.emergency.com/hussein1.htm

Fawazi al-Shamari was a senior Iraqi Army general in the 1980s. He met with Saddam Hussein many times, and believes the Iraqi leader enjoys watching torture:

"The chief of intelligence at that time, he was my friend. And he told me, the first time he installed the acid pool, and explained exactly how he is going there with Saddam Hussein and with a few bodyguards, in a secured place. And they bring the political and military leaders and they hang them from their hair and drop them in the acid pool. And then, after that, he was smoking his cigar and laughing."

http://www.iraqcrisisbulletin.com/archives/032003/html/saddam_hussein_s_history_of_le.html

About the best example of the off handed way in which Saddam Hussein dispensed torture, was how his son, Uday, tortured athletes who failed to perform well in competition.

Again, anyone who believes any of this crap about Saddam as victim is a tool who merely buys in to the talking points of clowns like Ramsey Clark, who's hatred of America, and love of anyone who HATES America, is unmatched by anything remotely resembling reason.

 

[mantis]

i understand
i've seen longer lists of horrible things
but again, those lists are what TV is telling you
that doesnt mean it's correct information
plus, if you were him you would have probably killed your brother in law for just being a communist..
anyway, im not defending the guy... i am far from liking the guy or believing in him or defending him
but my point is we should wait until the trial is over to throw judgements. TV is only a tool to convince the people that we need to be at war, but doesnt mean what it says is correct or even near correct.
look at history, how many governments in the world lie to their people? ALL of them do. u know what i mean?
all im trying to communicate is there's a possiblity that you have been hearing wrong things. that's my entire point. simply!

btw, im so eager to know where ur from and more about ur background
but i'd rather not know, coz i dont want to make prejudgements when talking to you!

 

[sgtmac_46]

i understand
i've seen longer lists of horrible things
but again, those lists are what TV is telling you
that doesnt mean it's correct information
plus, if you were him you would have probably killed your brother in law for just being a communist..
anyway, im not defending the guy... i am far from liking the guy or believing in him or defending him
but my point is we should wait until the trial is over to throw judgements. TV is only a tool to convince the people that we need to be at war, but doesnt mean what it says is correct or even near correct.
look at history, how many governments in the world lie to their people? ALL of them do. u know what i mean?
all im trying to communicate is there's a possiblity that you have been hearing wrong things. that's my entire point. simply!

btw, im so eager to know where ur from and more about ur background
but i'd rather not know, coz i dont want to make prejudgements when talking to you!

Oh, I don't need to wait for a trial to cast judgements. The list of Saddam Hussein's crimes are endless. The idea that they 'might not be true' is the same stuff of which holocaust deniers create their own arguments.

What's more, I didn't get that from the 'TV'.

And if you're insinuating that I could be hearing 'wrong things', then maybe you could support that with some evidence.

Oh, I suppose you could take the conspiratorial theory that it's all made up. But, then, if you're going to take that route, you might as well argue that there might not even be such a thing as 'Saddam Hussein', or even suggest that Iraq doesn't really even exist, it's all made up on a Hollywood sound stage.....just like the moon landings. :erg:

Stop putting so much stock in to conspiracy theories you read on the internet. The simplest explainations are usually the truest.

 

[arnisador]

From today's local paper:

 

[sgtmac_46]

From today's local paper:

:erg: :rofl:

That's so beautiful....and SOOO true.

 

[arnisador]

Hussein Tells Court He's On a Hunger Strike

Now, like Forrest Gump before me, I'm not a smart man...so can someone please explain to me why I might care whether this nutjob manages to starve himself to death before he is hanged?

I doubt that he is truly fasting, or if he is that it will last for long...but I'm not going to be very concerned about this until he's lost, say, about 250 pounds.

Defendants have been using the trial as a stage for political antics, and today was no exception. Toward the end of the session, Hussein lambasted the "Americans and Zionists" and, in a segment that was edited, the version broadcast to viewers with a 20-minute delay urged Iraqis to fight the "occupier."

"I urge Iraqis that everyone should fight and defend his country," he said.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Hussein Tells Court He's On a Hunger Strike

Now, like Forrest Gump before me, I'm not a smart man...so can someone please explain to me why I might care whether this nutjob manages to starve himself to death before he is hanged?

I doubt that he is truly fasting, or if he is that it will last for long...but I'm not going to be very concerned about this until he's lost, say, about 250 pounds.

Yeah, i'm not sure about that myself. Why should I care? He can starve himself to death, and I won't lose a moments sleep.

 

[qizmoduis]

Yeah, i'm not sure about that myself. Why should I care? He can starve himself to death, and I won't lose a moments sleep.

He's not performing for us.