Collis Posted November 12, 2006 Report Share Posted November 12, 2006 Discuss... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinC Posted November 12, 2006 Report Share Posted November 12, 2006 What percentage of Bush's total might be attributed to Blair? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scootered Posted November 12, 2006 Report Share Posted November 12, 2006 Where does the 148 come from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fat Controller Posted November 12, 2006 Report Share Posted November 12, 2006 Where does the 148 come from?SH was tried and sentanced for the massacre of these 148 in Dujail in 1982, following an uprising against him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scootered Posted November 12, 2006 Report Share Posted November 12, 2006 so where does the 1.000.000 figure come from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collis Posted November 12, 2006 Author Report Share Posted November 12, 2006 so where does the 1.000.000 figure come from?More than one million dead Iraqi children and over millions of Iraqis have become casualties in this farce called democracy. The trial evidence should have included the deals that Rumsfeldt and Saddam cut. Saddam may be evil but Bush and his administration are eviler if there is such a thing perhaps Satan�s very own hotline. So what sentence awaits the Bush Administration? Sanctions? Boycotting� or perhaps even exile?Thats one side of the story.Of course Bush did not directly order to kill all those people like Saddam did. Does that make it OK? Who is responsible for the deaths of those Iraqis and the British and American soldiers, Saddam? Bush? Blair?Its all very interesting... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scootered Posted November 12, 2006 Report Share Posted November 12, 2006 I know what you're saying, just a stupid title IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collis Posted November 12, 2006 Author Report Share Posted November 12, 2006 I know what you're saying, just a stupid title IMOIts not something I wrote myself. It was an article I read, which was very interesting.How is it stupid then in you're opinion? Explain yourself Scoot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pilnin Posted November 12, 2006 Report Share Posted November 12, 2006 Correct me if i'm wrong...The 148 is just taken from 1982?What about the deaths caused by SH since then? Surely that would make for a fairer title? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fat Controller Posted November 12, 2006 Report Share Posted November 12, 2006 Correct me if i'm wrong...The 148 is just taken from 1982?What about the deaths caused by SH since then? Surely that would make for a fairer title?Yes, but these are the only deaths that he has been found guilty of causing.Therefore a more accurate figure would be 148:0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddoh Posted November 12, 2006 Report Share Posted November 12, 2006 Yes, but these are the only deaths that he has been found guilty of causing.Therefore a more accurate figure would be 148:0something you should all think about history is always written by the victor therefore most of what you read is wrong .saddam intrested in looking after no 1bush interested in looking after no 1 no difference both should be hungas for blair just a puppet or should that be muppet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scootered Posted November 12, 2006 Report Share Posted November 12, 2006 Its not something I wrote myself. It was an article I read, which was very interesting.How is it stupid then in you're opinion? Explain yourself Scoot!I would have thought that was obvious, one's a confirmed number that someone has been convicted for, the other isn't!On the other hand one's an estimate for Bush but doesn't include the estimate of deaths caused by Saddam.Talk about unbalanced Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grifty Posted November 12, 2006 Report Share Posted November 12, 2006 Saddam killed those people to take-over a coutry and rule it his way while Bush, whatever your opinion of the war, has 'killed' those people trying to save the country.Saddam also sentenced them to death with death warrants, which Bush hasn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddoh Posted November 12, 2006 Report Share Posted November 12, 2006 Saddam killed those people to take-over a coutry and rule it his way while Bush, whatever your opinion of the war, has 'killed' those people trying to save the country.Saddam also sentenced them to death with death warrants, which Bush hasn't.I think if you look back in time bush got into power by rigging the votes he is no different than saddam and take a good look at who caused the problem in the first place thats right we did Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fat Controller Posted November 12, 2006 Report Share Posted November 12, 2006 something you should all think about history is always written by the victor therefore most of what you read is wrong .saddam intrested in looking after no 1bush interested in looking after no 1 no difference both should be hungas for blair just a puppet or should that be muppetBut there will always be elements of truth.For example, earlier (lazy sunday) i watched a programme about the First World War, which showed some of Germany's victories in and around the African and East Asian colonies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted November 13, 2006 Report Share Posted November 13, 2006 148 is the total from the case for which he was prosecuted.He was responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths from his genocidal chemical warfare campaign against the Kurds. Add to that those killed in his original war of aggression in Kuwait, those killed by his secret police, those who were starved whilst Oil for food money lines his pockets and you're talking about someone who makes history's top ten evil monsters quite easily.Bush is an incompetent moron who should never have been allowed near power but the civillian deaths during the Iraq war whilst tragic are nowhere near as many and more than outweighed by those people who have not been killed by Saddam since his removal from power (UN estimates he was killing 100,000 Iraqis per year). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MaccaJK Posted November 13, 2006 Report Share Posted November 13, 2006 SH was tried and sentanced for the massacre of these 148 in Dujail in 1982, following an uprising against him.but in reality he carried out many more killings and other inhumane acts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scootered Posted November 13, 2006 Report Share Posted November 13, 2006 And you forgot the Iran/Iraq war Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fat Controller Posted November 13, 2006 Report Share Posted November 13, 2006 but in reality he carried out many more killings and other inhumane acts.Indeed.But if his death sentance is carried out, then he wont ever be tried for the other crimes against humanity he has committed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MaccaJK Posted November 13, 2006 Report Share Posted November 13, 2006 Indeed.But if his death sentance is carried out, then he wont ever be tried for the other crimes against humanity he has committed.we all know he did them so why let him have a trial.BUT should his death sentance be carried out some of the more extreme people of the islamic faith may try and take matters into their own hands again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fat Controller Posted November 13, 2006 Report Share Posted November 13, 2006 we all know he did them so why let him have a trial.Its a little thing called human rights, the right to a fair trial etc etc.The same act that has also prompted 6 drug abusers to sue the prison service for failing to "wean" them off heroin, and make them go cold turkey.Its also governed by the Geneva Convention i think, as Saddam is officially a POW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MaccaJK Posted November 13, 2006 Report Share Posted November 13, 2006 Its a little thing called human rights, the right to a fair trial etc etc.he doesn't deserve human rights. did he give fair trials to the people whom he killed?how about the bloke who missed a penalty and had his ears cut off and was put in a cell for a year? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fat Controller Posted November 13, 2006 Report Share Posted November 13, 2006 he doesn't deserve human rights. did he give fair trials to the people whom he killed?how about the bloke who missed a penalty and had his ears cut off and was put in a cell for a year?Which would make International Law an ass (more so than it is), by turning those who invade the country on the basis of overthrowing a tyrant into hypocrites (more so than they ever are). I agree that he is too inhumance to deserve a trial, but lets not give supporters of terrorism more ammunition than theyve already got against the "corrupt" west. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MaccaJK Posted November 14, 2006 Report Share Posted November 14, 2006 Which would make International Law an ass (more so than it is), by turning those who invade the country on the basis of overthrowing a tyrant into hypocrites (more so than they ever are). I agree that he is too inhumance to deserve a trial, but lets not give supporters of terrorism more ammunition than theyve already got against the "corrupt" west.yeah thats a good point actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCFC Taunton Posted November 15, 2006 Report Share Posted November 15, 2006 SH was tried and sentanced for the massacre of these 148 in Dujail in 1982, following an uprising against him.What about all the othes SH killed that he hasn't been tried for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fat Controller Posted November 16, 2006 Report Share Posted November 16, 2006 What about all the othes SH killed that he hasn't been tried for?You can only kill the man once. Unless you want to wait and try him for the crimes that "we all know he committed anyway".148 is the number of people that Saddam Hussein is guilty of causing the deaths of, by law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bucksred Posted November 16, 2006 Report Share Posted November 16, 2006 Correct me if i'm wrong...The 148 is just taken from 1982?What about the deaths caused by SH since then? Surely that would make for a fairer title?He's currently on another trial for the murder of the Kurds of Falluja (I think) by use of nerve agents, and there are others to come.Ben might know, but has he been done for the murders/rapes/kidnapping/looting of Kuwait in 1991? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.