SADDAM LAYS DOWN WEAPONS WITH "PEACE AND JOY IN HEART"
Following world-wide marches for peace the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein has today laid down all his weapons of mass destruction, ended all state sanctioned torture and executions, and declared Iraq to be a "centre of universal joy, love and harmony."



Peace, Protest and Shopping!
The President, standing on the steps of Baghdad jail, declared that his "soul had been touched" by the supportive actions of hundreds of thousands of people all over the western world. "I am so bowled over by this" he continued "that I have decided to end my nuclear weapons programme, offer up all my chemical weapons to Hans Blix - bless him - and immediately hand myself in to the War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague. What's the address again? Can I take a bus?"


Saddam's two sons Uday and Qusay then came forward to the microphone and - sinking to their knees - proclaimed that following the "outpourings of love and affection" from the protesters they too had decided to mend their ways and - from now on - end their programmes of Iraq-wide mutilation, rape and kidnappings and enter a "contemplative life devoted to the teachings of Gandhi, Nelson Mandela and - most saintly of all - Mother Theresa". Speaking for the Iraqi Republican Guard General Ali al-Majid, now bedecked with CND badges and pictures of sweet little Kurdish children formally announced "the total retreat of the Iraqi army from Kurdish areas, the ending of eye-gouging and mass rapes for a trial period and - most humane of all - the conversion of all torture chambers into softly padded bouncy castles - the kids will love it!"

Liberally spreading flowers and dispensing justice and harmony in equal measure, Saddam's half brother Barzan Al-Tikriti then came forward and asked for forgiveness. "What's the murder of several thousand members of the Barzani tribe between friends? Okay, okay I was young - all forgiven now though I'm sure!" he proclaimed as he was suddenly surrounded and mobbed by a crowd of several hundred peace loving 'human shields' recently arrived from Oswestry.


Greeting the news in London, crowds of protestors started cheering, with Mexican waves breaking out spontaneously. Protestor Laura Webb said, "It's clear that bombing a country, removing the genocidal totalitarian leadership and liberating its people is simply not the way to effect change. What we needed was crack teams of twittering, middle class liberals to go on a lovely, lovely march. How right I was. Ooh, there's Charles Kennedy over there!"

Warming to the theme, Stephen Knight of the Peace and Love Liberation Lib Dem Army said, "well, I know Saddam is not a very nice man but really," he whined, "you can't effect change in a country with military action. Look at Afghanistan. Look at Bosnia. Do you remember the Second World War you twits? I was all in favour of sending Saddam a tart note, or looking very stern or something. This has all gone to show how right I was!" as he then went off to Selfridges for a Saturday afternoon shopping spree.

Speaking to the Brains Trust, Middle East expert Dr Hugo Al-Hackenbush said, "it's true, a war on Iraq could kill many thousands of innocent people. But that's not what's important. What's important is that a few B-list celebrities, several hundred thousand well-fed, middle-class liberals - and Charles Kennedy - get a lovely day out in the beautiful sunshine and the chance to say how awful Tony Blair is. What could be more satisfying than that?"


Meanwhile, Saddam, now dressed from head to toe in sackcloth and ashes, with a dozen beautiful doves resting on his shoulders - a small badged picture of Charles Kennedy resting on his lapel - said, "It's true. I have been a little heavy handed in the past. 150 000 Shia Moslems here, a few thousand Kurds there. Systematic rapes, torture, eye-gouging, the starvation of my people, the use of chemical weapons. The deaths of millions in the war with Iran. The invasion of Kuwait. I was a bit misguided, it's true. But the sight of hundreds of thousands of good liberal people, marching up and down the streets of Paris, New York and London, marching for my right to continue my regime, to do the hell I like, to stay secure in my borders and rule my people the only way I know how - it brought a tear to my eye. And it would have brought tears to the eyes of most of my prisoners as well, had they any left. Falaqa, anyone?"



Taken from http://www.brainstrust.org

What a letter, what a subject, how right you are, these idiot's who went marching for peace are living in cloud cuckoo land. Do they really think that Saddam Hussain will give up his weapon's of mass destruction or change his way's?

If they do they must be mental! this murdering thug is determined to defy the world ( just like Adolph Hitler was ) and we all know what happened there dont we? These crank's that have travelled to Bagdad to be a human sheild should have their half a brain examined. :shock: :shock: :shock:

Story Here (http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_846934.html)

Reports are coming in that Saddam Hussein has been captured in Iraq.

The reports, from the Iran News Agency and an Iraqi Kurdish leader, claim he's been arrested in Tikrit.
Reports ARE unconfirmed at this time though!

more than likely one of his body doubles! but good news if its true - perhaps they'll chuck in the towel finally and our troops can come home

Its all confirmed now, DNA tests have been done apparently :o

More News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/3317429.stm)... seems a little more confirmed now. And Blair seems to believe the story.

Ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has been captured by US forces in Iraq, the coalition says.

He was found hiding in a cellar in his ancestral hometown of Tikrit, Iraqi official Ahmed Chalabi said.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair has welcomed the news saying it "removes the shadow" from over Iraq.

The Pentagon won't confirm it, but Blair will. Crazy. :loopy:

interesting they'd got the video's of him out so quickly - talk about trying to rub it in. He looked very tired and unkempt on the video. Not much chance of a fair trial for him me thinks...in Iraq - it'll be an execution, in the US it will be internment without trial for the rest of his natural.

My tip, he should go to the War Crimes unit - he'll be able to share a cell with Milosevic!

I think the pentagon have now confirmed it Sidla! (http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/video/39633000/rm/_39633973_saddam12_bremer_vi.ram)

Originally posted by Internetowl
interesting they'd got the video's of him out so quickly - talk about trying to rub it in. He looked very tired and unkempt on the video. Not much chance of a fair trial for him me thinks...in Iraq - it'll be an execution, in the US it will be internment without trial for the rest of his natural.

My tip, he should go to the War Crimes unit - he'll be able to share a cell with Milosevic!

The last thing they want is him spilling the beans in front of a live telecast.

Originally posted by Internetowl
interesting they'd got the video's of him out so quickly - talk about trying to rub it in. He looked very tired and unkempt on the video. Not much chance of a fair trial for him me thinks...in Iraq - it'll be an execution, in the US it will be internment without trial for the rest of his natural.

My tip, he should go to the War Crimes unit - he'll be able to share a cell with Milosevic!

Does he deserve a fair trial,afterall did the millions that were murdered under his instruction get a fair trial.
Obviously the Americans will now use this for there own Media Circus to reinforce how good they think they are.

In the same way they won both world wars all on there own NOT !!!!

Not bad realy it only took them 8 months to find someone that was right under their noses all the time.
It has been reported that he was handed over and not caught,this story sounds more like the right one

Everyone deserves a fair trial - but I think we can rest assured that even with a fair trial, he'll either be executed or permanently incarcerated.

I know he wasn't exactly big on handing out fair trials himself, but to give him anything other than a fair trial is just sinking to his level, and would hardly help the already precarious situation in Iraq.

I think that the people of Iraq will want to see justice done, but on *their* terms, and not just handed out by the Americans like it was to Saddam's sons.

Originally posted by Mike

I think that the people of Iraq will want to see justice done, but on *their* terms, and not just handed out by the Americans like it was to Saddam's sons.
And Grandson (14).

If he is tried in Iraq will the sentence be more leniant than if he is tried in another country?

He's been declared a POW and is being treated humanely (probably).

I hope they catch Osama next.....

He will be tried in public in Iraq and going by Iraq's justice system it looks like a death sentence is on the cards. Saddam has NOT been classified as a POW but is supposedly being kept under the rules of the Geneva Convention (not that it matters as the US have violated it enough times :rolleyes:).

I think there's more chance of hell freezing over than catching Mr. Bin Lid.

I think there's more chance of hell freezing over than catching Mr. Bin Lid.

I agree, I no longer saw Saddam as a threat and although it is great news that they have caught him, I still feel Bin Lid is the one we should really worry about at this moment in time.

If Saddam does get tried he has the potential to open up a few cans of worms for alot of people. I'm not sure it will be in Americas best interest to see him on trial.

According to the papers the official British line is that they don't want Saddam executed, although they will accept the death penalty if the Iraqis/Americans decide to go that way.

Anyone else agree that Saddam should be executed? I have mixed feelings about this, as it could make him a martyr.

Originally posted by Funky Dave
According to the papers the official British line is that they don't want Saddam executed, although they will accept the death penalty if the Iraqis/Americans decide to go that way.

Anyone else agree that Saddam should be executed? I have mixed feelings about this, as it could make him a martyr.
Well I think he should stand trial first, before anything happens.

Then we will find out what he is accused of.

Then he will do a Milosevic, and perhaps the Iraqis will do a Ceaucescu.

If this was ultimately the object of the whole exercise, and not really WMD, I can't help thinking that going into full scale military confrontation was actually totally unecessary; irrespective of the fact that it is in clear contravention of international law.

I am pleased Saddam was captured well before the Hutton report lands on Blair's desk.

I want no 'a good time to bury bad news' senario to distract from it's content.

It doesn't matter who got him, "We got him" that's all that matters. Everyone can now move on towards peace. Peace an freedom is worth fighting for.

Originally posted by Funke88
Everyone can now move on towards peace. Peace an freedom is worth fighting for.

You can never truly 'fight' for peace though... always there will be innocents killed or a religious issue which will create more violence in the 'aftermath of the war' (to my mind this war never ended in May, clearly)... plus the bombing of coalition targets hasn't stopped yet even though they've got the 'mastermind' behind them all... hmmm...

Originally posted by Agent Dan
You can never truly 'fight' for peace though... always there will be innocents killed or a religious issue which will create more violence in the 'aftermath of the war' (to my mind this war never ended in May, clearly)... plus the bombing of coalition targets hasn't stopped yet even though they've got the 'mastermind' behind them all... hmmm...

Like the man said:
fighting for peace is like shagging* for chastity

*subsitute a much ruder word here

According to the Daily Telegraph yesterday (which I thought I would quote for a change, instead of the Guardian) Saddam H's regime is responsible for over 2million murders, which the Telegraph point out is more murders than Pol Pot and more murders than in Rwanda.

I personally dont believe in the death penalty, not even for mass murderers and tyrants. But I will say that the effort I would be prepared to expend to prevent the death penalty being carried out, would be less in some cases than in others.

Iraq isn't like your average western democracy. It's full of people who want change, or (like the Kurds) independence. There are those who denounce western democracy, and there are plenty of ordinary people who despise the Americans and British for what they've done in their country. At least Saddam kept Iraq together, albeit under an iron grip. Does anyone think there's a danger that Iraq will slip into anarchy after the Americans have gone, to the detriment of its people?

Originally posted by Belle
[B]According to the Daily Telegraph yesterday (which I thought I would quote for a change, instead of the Guardian) Saddam H's regime is responsible for over 2million murders, which the Telegraph point out is more murders than Pol Pot and more murders than in Rwanda.


It seems a pity to have installed him in the first place, perhaps even a mistake by our political forefathers.

Will we learn?

Originally posted by Funky Dave
At least Saddam kept Iraq together, albeit under an iron grip. Does anyone think there's a danger that Iraq will slip into anarchy after the Americans have gone, to the detriment of its people?
I think there's some evidence that it already is. I saw a TV programme some time ago, but after the Americans/British had declared the war was over, about the "post war" situation. Volunteers were signing up for unpaid police jobs to help set up some kind of order. However, they were vastly outnumbered by criminals and looters and were unable to cope. They started taking monentary bribes to protect those that had paid them.

American and British soldiers are still be killed over there in ambush attacks. I think the war isn't really over... Saddam still had a lot of supporters, I believe they'll still keep fighting.

The situation is so complex. I hope some order can be established sooner rather than later. I don't think Saddam's methods were the answer but something needs to be done soon. I don't think the Iraqis will thank the Americans/British if we try to enforce a "Westernized" system upon them. I think that's insulting to their cultures/lifestyle.

I hope you get what I mean, I'm not very clear at expressing myself with these things!

Originally posted by Belle
According to the Daily Telegraph yesterday (which I thought I would quote for a change, instead of the Guardian) Saddam H's regime is responsible for over 2million murders, which the Telegraph point out is more murders than Pol Pot and more murders than in Rwanda.

I personally dont believe in the death penalty, not even for mass murderers and tyrants. But I will say that the effort I would be prepared to expend to prevent the death penalty being carried out, would be less in some cases than in others.

That could well be right. I've seen it reported that Pol Pot was responsible for as high as 1.5 million murders and fully supported by the west. Even when exiled, the Khymer Rouge was funded by the US, and Pot was still recognised as Cambodia's leader by the US and UK.

I don't know why Pinochet escapes been mentioned in the same breath.

Saddam a brutal dictator who put down his people, killed his opposition, tortured and murdered his own people during a 25 year reign.

Pinochet a brutal dictator who put down his people, killed his opposition, tortured and murdered his own people.
30,000 in his first couple of weeks alone.

one demonised
one a freind

My own view is that they should have been treated exactly the same.

Originally posted by Lickszz
...I don't know why Pinochet escapes been mentioned in the same breath.

Saddam a brutal dictator who put down his people, killed his opposition, tortured and murdered his own people during a 25 year reign.

Pinochet a brutal dictator who put down his people, killed his opposition, tortured and murdered his own people.
30,000 in his first couple of weeks alone.

one demonised
one a freind

My own view is that they should have been treated exactly the same.

30,000 guatemalan peasants killed by CIA organised death squads... the litany is never ending.

You have my 100% agreement Lickszz.

I believe this deferential treatment of some dictators and persecution of others is not a morally based policy, as our politicians would like us to believe. It is a policy based on ruthless realpolitik that our government would rather not speak of.

And you can see why.

Speaking as the person who quoted from the Telegraph (from memory) I dont know if they mentioned Pinochet or not

I certainly dont see him as my pal, let me tell you

And okay, maybe we shouldnt have been looking the other way when Saddam came along, maybe we shouldnt have let him get into position, or supported him, years ago.

But I am SICK TO DEATH of this argument.

Does it therefore follow that we cannot then do right?

That we have to say "Oh yeah, what a terrible mistake we made, but we cant now try to put things right. We have to just keep on doing the wrong thing for fear of being hypocritical."

Should Ian Huntley just have been allowed to carry on as caretaker at Soham School on the grounds that the governing body had employed him so they had to stick with him? Of course not that would be ludicrous.

I dont know the facts about what our Government did over the last 20 years. Most of them are not even politicians any more, dead or retired.

I dont even care

Even if they had invited home to meet their mothers I would STILL want them to stop him from murdering 2 million people.

I am not especially supportive of the Government on this issue, but I am VERY supportive of moves to get rid of the Ba'ath Party and Saddam and his entourage.

VERY supportive

Just as I would be very supportive of getting rid of Pinochet

Or Mugabe

Or any other bloody tyrant

ALL tyrants

Let me hear no more of this "Ah yes but Saddam isnt as bad as this bloke" or "you cant tackle one until you have tackled all"

Tackling any is A GOOD THING

We in the West in our easy little lives, wondering merely about the safety of walking down Sharrow Lane in the dark, have no idea about the troubles of people who live under the cosh in some of these countries. Imagine half of the people you just brought Christmas presents for, being murdered and raped in the next few years.

Now tell me that we shouldnt be doing anything we can to save them.

Irrespective of charges of hypocrisy.

I would be a hypocrite all day long if it saved further millions

At some point in the future the Iraqi tyrant Saddam Hussain will face a war crimes trial. Assuming he is guilty (which has to be a reasonable auumption) should he receive the death penalty.

My own view is that he should.

Personally I think he should be hung drawn and quartered and his head put on the London Bridge (or was it Tower bridge?)

Fully televised, perhaps Sky could charge like they for boxing matches with the money raised going to help the people of Iraq and a running commentary by those sports fellas who do the american football games!

I could go on..

Sick....me??

Moon Maiden

Death is an easy way out.


Best way is to lock people, so they live but yet their life is non-existent

Originally posted by Skatiechik
Death is an easy way out.


Best way is to lock people, so they live but yet their life is non-existent

yeah but that costs me money. Saying that killing him could turn him into a matyr. Don't we keep lions anymore? what about a accident with hemlock?

Moon Maiden

He should be put in a room, clinically white on his own with absolutly no human contact, and have 'love is blue' played on loop until he dies of old age.

I dont believe in killing someone for killing themselves. That makes the law just as bad as the criminal.

Neither Iraqi nor international law support the death penalty.

Under what legal system do you suggest he be tried to bring about such a penalty?

No one is above or below the law, he should suffer the penalty according to Iraqui law for the crimes he has committed, which would be life imprisonment.

Originally posted by Moon Maiden
Personally I think he should be hung drawn and quartered and his head put on the London Bridge (or was it Tower bridge?)

Fully televised, perhaps Sky could charge like they for boxing matches with the money raised going to help the people of Iraq and a running commentary by those sports fellas who do the american football games!

I could go on..

Sick....me??

Moon Maiden

I understand your feelings. My own view is that after a slow and painful hanging he should be cremated and his ashes flushed down a toilet in Baghdad jail. How apt, his final resting place would be with all the other ****s in Iraq!

Originally posted by Moon Maiden
Personally I think he should be hung drawn and quartered and his head put on the London Bridge (or was it Tower bridge?)

Fully televised, perhaps Sky could charge like they for boxing matches with the money raised going to help the people of Iraq and a running commentary by those sports fellas who do the american football games!

I could go on..

Sick....me??

Moon Maiden


Here, Here, This Monster should be given what he has dished out to Millions of other Human beings and be put to Death very very slowly and I mean SLOWLY!!!

Being Hung Drawn and Quartered is very slow - or has no one seen braveheart?
The only possible problem is that not all people undergoing this penalty were still concious by the time they got to the quartering.

Moon

Why is it that imagining what 'I would like to do' to various "bogeymen" figures (be they foreign dictators, paedophiles, etc) often seems to involve ignominious suffering death and desecration of the corpse?

And why is it that some people appear believe:

a)that they would have the stomache for doing it themselves? And if they would gleefully commit the actions descriped with relish themselves, what makes them different from any of Saddam's psychopathic Lieutenants?

b)that it would do any good anyway? - other than satisfy raw animal urges that most of us can tune out now, after ten thousand years of urban life. This is a city, atavists not welcome.

c)that the rest of us are in any way impressed by the inventive cruelty of their supressed rage against themselves? Sublimated, as it is, onto some "demon for today" such as OBL, Saddam, Gaddafi, Tax Inspectors, Pikeys, Gyppos, The great unwashed, daily mail readers etc.

I don't have to get inventive Phan I have minions who can do it for me.

Moon - Mrs Saddam

The trial will probably last to the end of his life anyway.

Leave it up to the Iraqi's to decide.

I think he should be dealt with in a manner consistent with the laws that applied over the Iraqi people. The Iraqis would expect to see justice of a style that makes sense to them.

So yes.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
And why is it that some people appear believe:

a)
c)that the rest of us are in any way impressed by the inventive cruelty of their supressed rage against themselves? Sublimated, as it is, onto some "demon for today" such as OBL, Saddam, Gaddafi, Tax Inspectors, Pikeys, Gyppos, The great unwashed, daily mail readers etc.

perhaps you should have said 'that you believe in any way impressed' as it is clearly evident by the some of the posts here that others are impressed by the inventive cruelty of their supressed rage.

incidentally, would it be too difficult, even once for you to post in mainstrean english that the rest of us can understand?

Originally posted by Killian
perhaps you should have said 'that you believe in any way impressed' as it is clearly evident by the some of the posts here that others are impressed by the inventive cruelty of their supressed rage.

er... not sure what you mean, but ok, perhaps I should.

incidentally, would it be too difficult, even once for you to post in mainstrean english that the rest of us can understand?

Which bit don't you understand?

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
er... not sure what you mean, but ok, perhaps I should.


Which bit don't you understand?

U've not got enough speeling mitakes and grammeratical errors, perhaps.

Originally posted by max
U've not got enough speeling mitakes and grammeratical errors, perhaps.

ah, so it is true? to serve them all my days revisited. i guess its my own fault for not listening to others.

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Why is it that imagining what 'I would like to do' to various "bogeymen" figures (be they foreign dictators, paedophiles, etc) often seems to involve ignominious suffering death and desecration of the corpse?

And why is it that some people appear believe:

a)that they would have the stomache for doing it themselves? And if they would gleefully commit the actions descriped with relish themselves, what makes them different from any of Saddam's psychopathic Lieutenants?
That's the most sensible thing I've ever read on this forum.

and then there were three.

Originally posted by Killian
and then there were three.
Me too.

think I may have been just a little too subtle here, but never mind

Originally posted by Moon Maiden
yeah but that costs me money. Saying that killing him could turn him into a matyr. Don't we keep lions anymore? what about a accident with hemlock?

Moon Maiden

What's a "matyr" when it's at home? Is it a mythical creature similar to a Satyr? We certainly wouldn't want to turn him into a creature who looked like a man, but had the hooves and tail of a goat. That would be most unpleasant.

Alternatively, you could take a hard line with him :)

Originally posted by Killian
think I may have been just a little too subtle here, but never mind
far too subtle or obscure for me I'm afraid. Unless you're talking about the Genesis album.

What does this mean

and then there were three


three what?

where?

How can anyone justify killing someone as punishment for their own acts of murder? It does not make sense that we can say " well you killed and that is wrong , so now we are going to kill you".
I hate Saddam, I think he is evil, but it is not up to any one to kill him, lock him up for the rest of his life, but no one has the right to kill anyone.

I have never and will never agree with capital punishment.

Chris.

Originally posted by elf
... but no one has the right to kill anyone.
A kill or be killed scenario would give someone the right to kill. I think I know what you mean though, it's wrong for a State to kill as a punishment and I would have to agree with you there.

I too have doubts about capital punishment normally but this is a rather specific case where those problems will not arrise.

Now here's an interesting question: when Saddam comes to trial will his old friend George Galloway MP be appearing as a character witness for the defence?

Originally posted by slimsid2000
I too have doubts about capital punishment normally but this is a rather specific case where those problems will not arrise.



Just for the record, what are these doubts and why will they not arise in this case?

Is it because you personally know saddam? There are many psychopaths and serial killers out there that aren't condoned by anyone and yet we don't go around killing them (not in this country anyway).

To be honest, i agree that he is a very evil, power hungry maniac, but can't the same be said of many government leaders around the world.

Besides, the only reason he was in power was because we (the western world) put him there as he was very much against the wave of islamic fundamentalism that was sweeping across Iran at the time. The fact that america links him with Al Queda (an islamic fundamentalist group) is laughable.

Wilf

P.S. I was planning on keeping out of these debates but to be honest, i sometimes get so infuriated with some people's opinions (not pointing finger at anyone, as i disagree with so many different people's opinions that it would be pointless to do so)

I usually leave this stuff to Phan, he can explain it better that i can anyway.

Originally posted by BrainThrust
Just for the record, what are these doubts and why will they not arise in this case?

Is it because you personally know saddam? There are many psychopaths and serial killers out there that aren't condoned by anyone and yet we don't go around killing them (not in this country anyway).

To be honest, i agree that he is a very evil, power hungry maniac, but can't the same be said of many government leaders around the world.

Besides, the only reason he was in power was because we (the western world) put him there as he was very much against the wave of islamic fundamentalism that was sweeping across Iran at the time. The fact that america links him with Al Queda (an islamic fundamentalist group) is laughable.

Wilf

P.S. I was planning on keeping out of these debates but to be honest, i sometimes get so infuriated with some people's opinions (not pointing finger at anyone, as i disagree with so many different people's opinions that it would be pointless to do so)

I usually leave this stuff to Phan, he can explain it better that i can anyway.

My doubts about capital punishment concern the chance of mistaken identity or that an inocent person would be wrongly convicted and hanged. regretably this has happened in the past. In the case of Saddam it is hard to see how either of these problems will arrise, so it can fairly be said that justice will be done.

hang him from his genetalia (sp)

that would teach him!!

Originally posted by slimsid2000
Now here's an interesting question: when Saddam comes to trial will his old friend George Galloway MP be appearing as a character witness for the defence?

Sorry but your sarcasm went completely over my head.

Don't you mean his old friend David Mellor? The one who visited Iraq, praised Iraq's (then) health system, and called Saddam a "voice of moderation in the Middle East?"


Edit: Actually it was then US assistant secretary of state John Kelly who said that. But you see my point :)

Originally posted by Abdul
Sorry but your sarcasm went completely over my head.

Don't you mean his old friend David Mellor? The one who visited Iraq, praised Iraq's (then) health system, and called Saddam a "voice of moderation in the Middle East?"


Edit: Actually it was then US assistant secretary of state John Kelly who said that. But you see my point :)

And it was George Galloway who was pretty much a lone voice of protest in parliament at the governments refusal to publically condemn the halabja gas massacre....

I saw George Galloway speak to a packed auditorium in the City Hall shortly after he was punted out of New Labour. I was interested to see what he had to say, free from spin and soundbite. He was a remarkably engaging speaker. Sadly events are panning out much as he predicted.

I can't remember exactly what he said on the "friends with Saddam" subject. I think he said that he despised Saddam's attrocities as much as the next person (which is consistent with his condemnation of the Hallubja Massacre) but admired Saddam's ability to stop the Sunnis and Shias from killing each other.

Anyone know what's he doing now? Still planning to run as an independent? (he will surely get elected in his constituency). What happened with the kerfuffle between him and the Daily Telegraph?

Originally posted by garrence

Anyone know what's he doing now? Still planning to run as an independent? (he will surely get elected in his constituency). What happened with the kerfuffle between him and the Daily Telegraph?

Galloway whilst a member of the Labour Party went to Iraq and notoriously said "I salute your courage, your indefatigability" To the leader of a foreign power whilst they were preparing for hostilities.

Galloway is still meant to be suing the Daily Telegraph for libel, I hear he has a very poor case and it will be rather interesting if he is forced to explain away his "expenses".

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
And it was George Galloway who was pretty much a lone voice of protest in parliament at the governments refusal to publically condemn the halabja gas massacre....

So his little speech to to Saddam ("Sir, I salute your courage, blah, blah, blah") was his way of condemning him was it. Poor old Saddam must have been quaking in his boots from such a vicious tounge lashing!

I've done a quick google search on this. George maintains that he "I salute you" comment was aimed at the Iraqi people not Saddam.

I haven't seen the footage so cannae make informed decision on whether to believe that.

At least, whatever happens, there will be some form of trial and come-uppance for Mr Hussain. Many other dictators got away scot free, sheltered and well fed by various countries. Idi Amin lived the life of reilly in Saudi Arabia because he convenieltly converted to Islam. Jean-Bertrand Aristide lives in New York City, and the killers of the Khmer Rouge are still in Cambodia.

A key question for the Iraqis is how deep they want to dig. They should have a Truth and Reconcilliation Commission like the ongoing one in South Africa. There are many thousands guilty of crimes, not just Saddam. I think a Iraqui justice system shoiuld handle him, but it is difficult to see what Iraq will gain from killing him.

Well I dont believe in capital punishment, so that part is easy enough to answer.

You cant go round saying killing is "a bad thing" except when the state does it, that is just so much "rude word beginning with b".

However, I would like to see him suffer, after the Red Cross found over 300,000 bodies in mass graves so far. I cant help feeling like that.

I saw a display of the holocaust recently, and all those piles of bodies ...well, it reminded me of what has gone on in Iraq over the last 10 years or so.

I rather wished they'd kept him in the hole and not let on that they had found him, that is probably a much worse place to be than the Geneva convention would ever allow

Of course they couldnt, so now everyone will have to do the right thing. Which is a proper trial and life imprisonment.

It wont be capital punishment, I think I am right in saying it isnt acceptable under international law, so many countries and states just dont do it any more and it is illegal throughout Europe for instance.

I'm surprised that you all think that SH worked alone. He was just another head of state who subverted his authority to benefit his family and friends. If he is to stand trial then so too should all the members of his extended family, including the Ba'ath party, who didn't take him to one side and whisper, 'I say old chap, don't you think you're going a bit far?'.

No, tyrants don't work alone as we saw from the Nuremberg trials after WW2.

I don't agree with capital punishment either, btw.

Sure Saddam couldn't have done anything without his hugely supportive Ba'ath party.

Like the party in Soviet russia, it was a 'join it or suffer' proposition.

Likewise Saddam could not have done what he did or got as far as he did without a great deal international support.

But in the case of his international supporters, it was not compulsion, but choice.

And he was chosen because of his secularism and anti-islamic stance which was used in a wider war of influence ongoing since the days of the cold war.

Another disastrous result of the philosophy "my enemy's enemy is my friend".

As the US administration discovered to their cost after spending years funding Osama Bin Laden and the Mujahedeen.

Originally posted by garrence
I've done a quick google search on this. George maintains that he "I salute you" comment was aimed at the Iraqi people not Saddam.

I haven't seen the footage so cannae make informed decision on whether to believe that.

I hear today that Gorgeous George has been accepted an undisclosed amount of damages and a full retraction and apology from the Christian Science Monitor who asserted that
"he opposed the war because he was paid handsomely by the Iraqi regime"

That is old news, I heard they were settling out of court a while ago.

Originally posted by slimsid2000
So his little speech to to Saddam ("Sir, I salute your courage, blah, blah, blah") was his way of condemning him was it. Poor old Saddam must have been quaking in his boots from such a vicious tounge lashing!

And whatever your interpretation of his speech as reported to you, it does not alter the fact that George Galloway was virtually a lone voice calling on the government to condemn the Halabja Gas Massacre.

But that does not fit your view of the man, so I hardly expect you to take notice.

I seem to remember hearing that immediately after the halabja massacre in 1988, certain elements in Britiain and America wanted to blame the Iranians. After all, the US had supplied Saddam with anthrax for years. They should really take a look at the dictatorships that they are supplying with military aid now, like Karimov of Uzbekistan, a really nasty piece of work.

Yes the CIA circulated an untrue story that fingered the Iranian Army as the culprits to protect Saddam from international opprobrium.

This, supposedly, is why the UK govt of the time were reticent to condemn Saddam for the attack.

Double Standards anyone?

Hell yeah he should hang! I'm a devout Christian but he's killed so many innocents that he doesn't deserve to live any more, particularly if he's put in some cushy prison like loads of other dictators have been.

Originally posted by theonenathe
Hell yeah he should hang! I'm a devout Christian but he's killed so many innocents that he doesn't deserve to live any more, particularly if he's put in some cushy prison like loads of other dictators have been.

I thought Christ taught that we should turn the other cheek and forgive those who trespass against us, etc. How can you be a devout christian and not follow Christ's teachings?

Originally posted by theonenathe
Hell yeah he should hang! I'm a devout Christian but he's killed so many innocents that he doesn't deserve to live any more, particularly if he's put in some cushy prison like loads of other dictators have been.
But you don't believe in the ten commandments?

When your time comes you'd better go and have a word with the God you so "devoutly" worship and put him straight...

"... and another thing Big Man, those 10 commandments...what on earth were you thinking?!?"

After reading all the postings on this subject .. what every one has failed to recognise is.....If it is deemed that the Us/British invasion of Iraq was illegal, then Saddams capture and imprisonment can be classed as illegal,and should be freed.
So would the americans let him go..(no chance).
Bush's only criteria for invasion was based on what his father failed to achieve in the nineties.

Perhaps somthing a bit more inventive than jail should be used - after so many years of living off the back of Iraq perhaps he should help putting it back together? Saddam the brickie?

Going back to the original question.
How high ?

Originally posted by Viper17
After reading all the postings on this subject .. what every one has failed to recognise is.....If it is deemed that the Us/British invasion of Iraq was illegal, then Saddams capture and imprisonment can be classed as illegal,and should be freed.
So would the americans let him go..(no chance).
Bush's only criteria for invasion was based on what his father failed to achieve in the nineties.

The logic of your argument is that Saddam should be returned to power. Somehow I don't think many Iraqis would agree with you.

Where exactly is Saddam Hussein? I've not heard anything about what has happened to him since he was captured. There's been no media coverage (that I've come across) since he was found.

George Bush talked about him in the past tense the other day saying he 'was' this and 'was' that as though he had died!

Last I heard was that he was still in Iraq. I think it is easier to try him there under Iraq law than in another country.

Just weird that all has fallen silent. This is a major dictator/war criminal that the world was hunting for. Where's all the hype? What are his prison conditions like? When's his trial? Is he dead?

Originally posted by Classic Rock
Just weird that all has fallen silent. This is a major dictator/war criminal that the world was hunting for. Where's all the hype? What are his prison conditions like? When's his trial? Is he dead?

Yes, I agree. There is something not quite right about all this.

Seriously odd.

The sooner he is brought to justice the better. I say hang him from the highest gibbet in Baghdad.

They're not exactly going to give the general public information like that though are they?! The Americans'll probably have him hidden away in some secret base or something.

And it's also convenient that all this is happening so close to the US Presidential Elections, Mr Bush'll be bleating to anyone who'll listen (and then some) about how he thinks he's single handedly saved the world as we know it from terrorism.

The latest news is that Saddam will appear in court tomorrow along with 11 of his former subordinates to be formally charged. Amongst the charges will be genocide and crimes against humanity.

It is considered likely he will eventually face the death penalty which seems popular with most Iraqis.

Come on judge, get that black cap ready now!

Originally posted by slimsid2000
The latest news is that Saddam will appear in court tomorrow along with 11 of his former subordinates to be formally charged. Amongst the charges will be genocide and crimes against humanity.

It is considered likely he will eventually face the death penalty which seems popular with most Iraqis.

Come on judge, get that black cap ready now!
I know he's a committed lots of wrongs but don't blame him for Grenoside as well!!!! Even Saddam doesn't deserve that

LOL classic.. still laughing now

Originally posted by max
I thought Christ taught that we should turn the other cheek and forgive those who trespass against us, etc. How can you be a devout christian and not follow Christ's teachings?

I'm merely playing devils advocate here. I'm not religious and personally I believe in an eye for an eye. Saddam should be hung, drawn and quartered. But as far as Christians turning the other cheek? - Joan of Arc fought in God's name and she became a saint. Christians have gone to war many times throughout history in the crusades and holy wars. They fought for what they believed was rightious in the name of God.

These days religious or not if you break the law you should receive a fitting punishment - So lets string up by the balls and use him as a pinata. (smack the hell out of him with a bat until his insides fall out) A children's game in Mexico but in this instance we aren't playing around!

OK, i've posted something similar to this before on a capital punishment thread. Ian Brady (The Moor's murderer) has been on permanent hunger strike for many years and is force fed through a plastic tube. He would prefer to die than carry on living in prison. This makes me think that we're doing something right if he would prefer to die and we refuse him that choice.

Also to echo what others have said, I find it hard to accept that the powers that be teach us that killing is wrong by killing. Though this is just my limited view and i would need to give it far more consideration before making it my definite opinion.

Anyway, time for pub and football. I'm sure this will be carrying on when i get back.

what is the point of a trial when the outcome is already beyond doubt?

I will be more interested in the defence put forward by Tariq Aziz, as he has been entertained and favoured by the successive thatcher and reagan administrations.

It will be him who should - if it is a trial and not a kangaroo court - be able to call Hurd, Weinberger, Heseltine, Rifkind, Kissinger, Ashdown, Galloway, etc to the witness stand.

The iraqi regime of old holds too many dirty secrets to be allowed a fair trial with witnesses before an international court.

I predict summary justice - not dissimilar to that dished out by the Sunni Ba'athists who previously held the reins of power.

Should have just left him in - he was hardly in any great position of power when he was overthrown, the head of a weakened country. Better the devil you know...!

Problem now is, keeping the country from civil war. Thing is, I don't think the sunni's and shia will fight, rathermore work to get rid of 'the occupiers'.

In any case, I can see it becoming an Islamic State (as opposed to secular) before long, as every US appointed leader will probably just get blown away.

Originally posted by wibbles
I know he's a committed lots of wrongs but don't blame him for Grenoside as well!!!! Even Saddam doesn't deserve that hey it could have been worse he could have lived in eccleshall:loopy: :loopy:

Why, why, why is everyone calling for the most painful death they can imagine for Saddam? Can anyone honestly say that had they lived the same life as he, they would not have done things in exactly the same way?

I think Saddam should be made to live in a Big Brother type house, with Victoria Beckham, Busted, Britney Spears, Linda Barker and Lily Savage.

Now that would be fun to watch, Evil BB could get really evil and dish out tortures each week?:D

I for one look forward to the coming war crimes trials of Saddam and his henchmen.

There are 12 defandants in the dock and obviously each case has to be treated individually. I can't claim to know enough about all 12 of them (not even all their names) to make a difinative judgement but there is likely to be pretty strong evidence against them if they are being charged and brought to trial.

That said not all will be equally culpable and the death sentence may not be appropriate in every case. There is likely to be a strong case for hanging in the case of Saddam and chemical Ali for example, but maybe some others like Tariq Aziz deserve a lesser sentence (ie a substantial prison term). It may be that some of them are aquited, who knows. At least justice is finally being done, which it would not be if there had been no war.

I agree that it would be a great pity if Iraq became an Islamic Fundamentalist country like neighbouring Iran. The Iraqi people deserve better than that. Still, even then the war would still have been right as Saddam was such unique evil in today's world that he had to be removed.

Finally a joke. 'Saddam has his dinner after Tariq aziz.' For those who don't know it stems from Saddam always insisting his food be tested before eating it as he was so scared of being poisened.

Saddam's going to be executed. Cowboy justice from a cowboy government run by a cowboy President.

During the trial, I'm guessing that none of the important questions will be answered regarding the complicity of the west during the 80s. He probably deserves to die, but his former big pal Rumsfeld et al should face some tough questions too.

Funny how moral absolutes suddenly develop and flourish over the years - when a country isn't producing enough oil, that is.

The good news is that Saddam will suffer the death penalty!

The bad news is that David Beckham will be taking it. :D :D

Originally posted by Sidla
Why, why, why is everyone calling for the most painful death they can imagine for Saddam? Can anyone honestly say that had they lived the same life as he, they would not have done things in exactly the same way?

I think that is the single most ridiculous cooment I have read this month, anywhere!

Sidla - slowly becoming new T020 - ?

Knowing George Dubya Bush, Saddam will be tried and found guilty - BUT - he will only be publicly executed if those dumb Americans allow him to be president for another four years. If they elect him out, no big execution. Awwww.

No, don't execute him.

Just imprison him until he dies. We had no problems imprisoning Hess for years after he ceased to be any sort of threat (unless the chap in Spandau WASN'T Hess, and there HAD been some secret mission....but that's another story...)

The 'Truth and Reconcilliation' approach would have merits if it were done properly. I don't believe that the provcess has been conducted in a good way in South Africa, and doubt that we'd see anything different in Iraq.

Put him in jail, treat him with the humanity that he refused to treat others with and show the Islamic world that we are not a bunch of barbarian crusaders. The issue will be that even though the trial is under the aegis of the new Iraqi Government, it will be constantly seen as being a puppet regime conducting a show trial for some time to come.

The trial has to be open and not end in an execution.

Joe

I think the trial will last forever. I think the Americans will try and bunk him off in Iraq (accident of course) and blame an iraqi citizen for this.

Amy

Originally posted by venger
I think that is the single most ridiculous cooment I have read this month, anywhere!

Sidla - slowly becoming new T020 - ?
I don't see why it's ridiculous. It's funny thou shoud say that though, but Geoff occasionally thinks that I am t020.

Anyway, seriously. If you'd have lived the same life as Saddam, had the same parents as him, had the same friends as him, had the same experiences as him, then surely you'd think and do things in the same way as he has done?

I'm not trying to excuse all the things he has done, but there is a reason why he did them.

In less than a few months of being handed over to the Iraqi's Saddam will be free and go into hiding again - you mark my words.

It'll be the single biggest bungle of the century.

I have read that Saddam intends to have his name on the ballot paper for the proposed January elections in Iraq.

I'm not sure that this will be allowed although as far as I'm aware international law stipulates that if he isn't on trial by that time then he can stand.

The questions is though, what if he was voted back in? :?

it would be funny in an ironic way

Meh, even the Iraqis wouldn't be silly enough to vote him back in power so let him stand...

It isn't really a case of being silly Rich - it is a case of being scared to death.

I haven't kept up with the whole situation much but there are still a number of Saddam supporters alive and well and able to vote in Iraq. Also having him on the balloting paper would petrify those ho don't want him back and undermine the little confidence they have in the people over there to help them rebuild.

I don't understand how the man could stand anyway what a ridiuclous idea.

Moon

Technically, according to international law, he's still the president of Iraq, since the American invasion was illegal.

Originally posted by Rich
Meh, even the Iraqis wouldn't be silly enough to vote him back in power....

Why ever not?

We (the British) voted MT back in to power..

Originally posted by sccsux
Why ever not?

We (the British) voted MT back in to power..

Yes and it looks as if the same British are going to give Bliar (not a spelling mistake) a third term in office. How silly is that?

Originally posted by Killian
Yes and it looks as if the same British are going to give Bliar (not a spelling mistake) a third term in office. How silly is that?

And, to make matters worse, Shrub may get elected across the pond in a few weeks!

The Iraqis did not bring the death penalty back for no reason. I somehow think Saddam will not be back in power, well unless he is literally connected to the power mains!

Originally posted by sccsux
And, to make matters worse, Shrub may get elected across the pond in a few weeks!


mmmmmmm maybe not if the next debates are the same as last nights.

Why shouldn't he stand - after all I though the idea was to introduce free, open and fair elections???

Originally posted by evildrneil
Why shouldn't he stand - after all I though the idea was to introduce free, open and fair elections???

Quite right. And why don't we throw in Atilla the Hun and Peter Sutcliffe for good measure.

Originally posted by Killian
Quite right. And why don't we throw in Atilla the Hun and Peter Sutcliffe for good measure.
What a cool election!! (in a sicko mabre sort of way) I wonder what the Yorkshire Rippers campaign slogan would be! SLASH TAXES VOTE FOR THE RIPPER!:clap: :clap: :clap:

Originally posted by Killian
Quite right. And why don't we throw in Atilla the Hun......


'Cause he's dead?? ;-)

Well if we beleive in democracy and innocent until proven guilty then Sadam is entitled to stand.
And whats more he has the support on the sunnys so he might do better than some think.
It woul'd be quite funny if he won ,wonder what Blair and Bush woul'd say then.

Originally posted by sccsux
'Cause he's dead?? ;-)

That never stopped Dracula becoming President of Transylvania.

Originally posted by Killian
That never stopped Dracula becoming President of Transylvania.

Don't you mean leader of the tory party?

Originally posted by max
Don't you mean leader of the tory party?

You're joking? Does Wesley Snipes know???

The latest news is that trials of at least two of his henchmen (including 'Chemical Ali') will start this spring. However, Saddam himself will not be tried until at least the end of this year or even well into next year.

Sometime justice can seem frustratingly slow, but at least things are starting to move.

Lets get them gallows built and a good lengh of rope ordered:clap:

I do not believe in hanging in any circumstances.

In extreme cases, ie for particularly brutal murders, the prisoners should be kept in jail for LIFE and given little no priviledges.

This should apply to Saddam.

This is much better punishment than hanging.

Naa don't hang him...he'll be more useful in prison. You never know one day they might bring George Bush to trial and they may need a witness

It is up to the Iraqi law courts to decide the fate of the shady ex dictator known as saddam hussien, no capital letters for this nasty piece of work.

Why are you all being so nice to Saddam Hussein - he should be made to sit in his cell and listen to 'Busted' 24/7.

That'll teach him!:hihi:

Anyway - Im sure Owdlad told me once - he'd love to see Saddam well hung??;) :P

Saddam wasn't that bad. Yes, he gassed some marsh Arabs, invaded Iraq and upset people in Tel Aviv with his rockets. We have all , at some point, been involved with "the wrong crowd". What about a bit of forgiveness? He has his good side. What about the Saddam that likes Quality Street? George Galloway [a very clever man] says that Saddam is "indefatigable". Wouldn't you be if you'd been encouraged to be the "policeman of the gulf" one year, and then regarded as a bit of a blummin' flipper [ pardon my strong language] the next? Not only that, he was also attacked by the entire American Army [though, strangely, it was British and French Foreign Legion tank units that were thoughtfully positioned right at the front to do the proper fighting]. As a muslim taxi driver said to me, "One day Saddam is good man, keeping back fundamentalists. Next day, Saddam is devil on earth".

What useful purpose, in terms of British interests, has been served by the removal of Saddam Hussein? Was his [doubtless barbarous by Western standards] treatment of his own people any of our business? I would like to know. What a really great success the neo-Con Bush and preachy, posturing Blair are making of Iraq. Pardon me while I leave the room to be sick.

Originally posted by timo
What useful purpose, in terms of British interests, has been served by the removal of Saddam Hussein? Was his [doubtless barbarous by Western standards] treatment of his own people any of our business? I would like to know.

I may be wrong here, but aren't some of Britains citizens Iraqi ex pats or have family over there?

Did the end of Sadam's regime ever have to benefit the british public in any other way than for the safety of some of their friends and family?

If you saw a group of thugs attacking an individual, would you ignore it, under the presumption that it's nothing to do with you and that there is nothing for you to gain by intervening?

Originally posted by Miss
I may be wrong here, but aren't some of Britains citizens Iraqi ex pats or have family over there?

Did the end of Sadam's regime ever have to benefit the british public in any other way than for the safety of some of their friends and family?

If you saw a group of thugs attacking an individual, would you ignore it, under the presumption that it's nothing to do with you and that there is nothing for you to gain by intervening?

he probably would.

I think Timo's right - why should we kill Saddam - what god given right do we have to take another's life. Surely its down to the legally elected government of Iraq to decide what to do to him.

Saddam for all his faults, at least generally kept in inside his own borders - he believed the dictatorship that is Kuwait is really part of Iraq and he did do the West's biding in the Iran-Irag war.

Let him stand trial in Iraq and let his people decide his fate - Bush and Blair would never let his happen - as they know the result before it happens - he would be free again.

Free Saddam - you know it makes sense....

MOD NOTE - Please stick to the topic in hand.

Further unproductive slanging matches and gratuitous insults will result in the this thread being removed...

In no way was I trying to insinuate cowardice on Timo's behalf... , so I apologise if it was indeed taken that way. I was merely wondering where he drew his lines of distiction.

I am not naive enough to believe that the reason we went to war in Iraqi was a free it's people from Saddams regime, I'm fully aware that our Government, much like the US, have their own agendas - namely that of the oil fields.

However, from my own point of view, I'm pleased that Saddam has been overthrown. The attrocities that he subjected his people to should never be tolerated. Ever. And if something can be done about it, I'm all for it.

The point that someone has made that if Saddam was put on trial in Iraq he would likely be freed... Well, if that is the case, so be it. The point is, the Iraqi people now have something they did not have before. A choice.

I most definately think that the fate of Saddam should rest in the hands of the Iraqi people. It was they who suffered, their friends and family who lived under the terror. They would be the best placed of all to decide his punishment...

Thanks for that, Miss. Maybe I've read too much Edmund Burke and Salisbury Review, and become a "little Englander", which is not easy to do, in the age of a global network of production and exchange ?

I acknowledge the terrible atrocities that were committed in the name of Saddam [and his son, Uday]. My position is, there are so many terrible regimes around the world which treat their populations appallingly, and Britain cannot afford [financially, and in terms of lives] to get involved in them unless British interests are directly affected. I am not entirely convinced, as is the case with many Tories [Paleo-Cons, not the crusading, free-market-obsessed Neo-Cons like Bush], that the intervention in Iraq was in our interests. If we and the USA are to become the "policemen of the world", why not intervene in North Korea?

Originally posted by timo
If we and the USA are to become the "policemen of the world", why not intervene in North Korea?

Good point. Altho perhaps that may be because they DO have weapons of mass destruction, and we may be afraid that they point them at us...?

Besides, it looks as tho Bush is turning his beady eye on Iran. No doubt, he will get around to North Korea at some point during his administration...

Miss,
I seriously doubt that Bush's crusading zeal extends to North Korea for the reason you mention [nukes]. When asked about the latter country, Bush is alleged to have said, "Leave North Korea to China". You are right, in my opinion, regarding Iran. They are next on the list for a visit from the "world's policemen". I'll bet they can't wait.

Originally posted by timo
Miss,
I seriously doubt that Bush's crusading zeal extends to North Korea for the reason you mention [nukes]. When asked about the latter country, Bush is alleged to have said, "Leave North Korea to China". You are right, in my opinion, regarding Iran. They are next on the list for a visit from the "world's policemen". I'll bet they can't wait.

Iran could argue with justification that if building a nuclear capability is the only way to prevent an American invasion (which, to be honest, looks likely), why should they not try to do so?

The legacy of the Iraq debacle will live on for decades.

it's very difficult to claim the moral highground and set themselves up as the world police when the americans disregard established laws and human rights whenever it suits them.

As much as I think he deserves a painful death - I think sometimes life in jail is a worse punishment. And killing him would make him into a hero figure for many - which could in turn lead to an escalation in violence in Iraq.

Originally posted by timo
Miss,
I seriously doubt that Bush's crusading zeal extends to North Korea for the reason you mention [nukes]. When asked about the latter country, Bush is alleged to have said, "Leave North Korea to China". You are right, in my opinion, regarding Iran. They are next on the list for a visit from the "world's policemen". I'll bet they can't wait.

As I said in an earlier post that I am glad the threat of Saddam Hussein has been removed from Iraq, I in no way support the seemingly gun-toting foreign policy of the Bush administration, or the willingness of Blair to make us the US lapdog.

I don't profess to have much knowledge about the events which take place on the world's polictical stage... So I know not what the people of Iran, or their government, are actually accused of doing. I know it'll be something to do with Bushes buzzword "war on terror", but other than that....?

For some real justice hang George Galloway, a traitor to the UK he deserves to be hung drawn and quartered.

Originally posted by jonsastar
For some real justice hang George Galloway, a traitor to the UK he deserves to be hung drawn and quartered.

Why? What was his crime?

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/media/story/0,12123,1365628,00.html

Originally posted by Abdul
Why? What was his crime?

He was a traitor to britain during war time.

Originally posted by jonsastar
He was a traitor to britain during war time.

Could you be a little more specific? Did he sell nuclear secrets to the Russians? Did he have afternoon tea with Hitler?

Originally posted by Abdul
Could you be a little more specific? Did he sell nuclear secrets to the Russians? Did he have afternoon tea with Hitler?

It seems he was cleared of said treasonous behaviour so I retract my previous statement.

I think he did have afternoon quality streets with Saddam though.

There was somthing I read that said he had told Saddams forces to kill British troops which really wound me up, I cannot find it anywhere on the net though for some reason, probably libelous if it is fiction, but it has been a while.

I personally was completely against the war in Iraq and I think that blair is a decieptfull man trying to put his name in the history books, I think the war was a war that didn't need to be fought and many innoscent lives were lost through it.

but my total disagreement with war would not make me want British troops to lose there lives, and it was this that made me feel Galloway should swing.