Job Discussion Forums

grahamb · Joined: 30 Apr 2003 Posts: 1945

As a previous poster said, what are they going to do with him? Here are a few fates worse than death. You choose.

dduck · Joined: 29 Jan 2003 Posts: 422 Location: In the middle

Perhaps, he'll be tried in Iraq, and I imagine that the Iraqis allow the death penalty - so, if he's not assassinated beforehand, they probably shoot him.

Iain

basiltherat · Joined: 04 Oct 2003 Posts: 952

without wishing to put ideas into people's heads, can we, perhaps, expect some die hard backers of hussein to take a group of US or other western citizens (or even high profile figures) hostage someplace in the world and threaten to kill them all if their 'idol' is not released ? No matter how futile this kind of act might be (at least, has been in the past), it does pose a worrying scenario short term. we all need to be on our guard at this time, especially
basil

Laura C · Joined: 14 Oct 2003 Posts: 211 Location: Saitama

From a UK newspaper:

'Four members of the interim Governing Council were taken to see Saddam to help dispel any fears that he was still at large.

'One, Adnan Pachachi, said: "We confirm it is him. He seemed rather tired and haggard but he was unrepentant and defiant at times. He tried to justify his crimes one way or another and said that he was a just but firm ruler.

'"Our answer was that he was an unjust ruler because his crimes were responsible for the deaths of thousands of people.''

So, just like George Bush and Tony Blair then.

No-one is denying that Saddam is a tyrant -- but what right had the U.S. and Britain to overthrow and arrest him? Does anyone actually believe this whole invasion (I refuse to call it a 'war') was about human rights or weapons of mass destruction? Nothing to do with oil then?

Even if it was about human rights or weapons, and I will happily bet my future life salary that it wasn't (Israel??) , again, what right do Britain and the U.S. have to say they alone know what is right, and they alone will do something, without U.N. backing?

I would love to see how the U.S would react if another country started dropping bombs on Washington because they had decided to 'liberate' America from an illegally elected ruler (see M Moore, Stupid White Men, Chapter 1), or because of America's weapons of mass destruction (the U.S. has more nuclear warheads than any other country in the world). *

The arrogance of Bush is breathtaking. And we are expected to believe he has the interests of whole human race at heart! Don't make me laugh. I am much more worried about George Bush and his crazy policies than I am about Saddam Hussein. Start of WW3, anyone?

I don't know exactly why Blair has got involved as I don't think he is particularly interested in empire-building, but Bush is pursuing an imperialist policy, pure and simple. And that he thinks we are stupid enough to believe that it is about 'liberation' (although some people clearly believe everything a government tells them) is sickening.

See this for a summary of U.S foreign policy over the past 50 years:

http://cloud.prohosting.com/unify/blum.html

People die because their lives are seen as less important than money. As simple as that.

L

* Sorry -- I don't have the source at hand for this, but remember reading it a few months ago.

leeroy · Joined: 30 Jan 2003 Posts: 777 Location: London UK

Oh, "It's Saddam disgrace" - "It's-a-damn-disgrace" - I get it now! Smile

fat_chris · Joined: 10 Sep 2003 Posts: 3198 Location: Beijing

I voted for "marry Maggie Thatcher," as serving as a teacher for Berlitz or the national manager for Scotland would still give him an opportunity to ruin other people's lives.

Being married to Maggie Thatcher would give Saddam a feeling of "so, now I know how miserable it all feels."

struelle · Joined: 16 May 2003 Posts: 2372 Location: Shanghai

Roger · Joined: 19 Jan 2003 Posts: 9138

I am truyly sorr, Steve, but I am sure even you know how naive it is to state that the world is "safer" now that Saddam Hussein has been removed.
I dare claim it's the opposite.

Remember what happened when Rumania's mob laid their hands on Ceauscescu? Was that "meting out justice"? It was plain murder, and now the whole nation has to live with pangs of their conscience.
Ditto in Saint Petersburg in 1917...

Someone from the populace always is with those in power, and administering "justice" to a ruler inevitably leads to desires of taking revenge.
Dispatching Hussein will certainly exacerbate a fragile social chemistry. At least one third of Iraq's nation will feel offended.

Plus it was those bloody foreign guys bringing Hussein to "justice", and let's be clear on that: Americans have a huge moral debt to the world at large for their crimes past and present, none of which they ever atoned for, compensated victims for or even acknowledged and apologised to their victims - see Vietnam.

johnslat · Posted: Tue Dec 16, 2003 3:37 am Post subject: The Great Satan strikes again

Dear Roger,
" Americans have a huge moral debt to the world at large for their crimes past and present, none of which they ever atoned for, compensated victims for or even acknowledged and apologised to their victims - see Vietnam."
Rather a "blanket accusation", wouldn't you say? I assume that citizens of the United Kingdom (and its earlier incarnation, the British Empire) also must atone for the "huge moral debt" they have accumulated.
Regards,
John