Will Saddam end up like Hitler ?

And what would happen if he gets killed early in the war ? Will Bush still win the election in 2004 ? Wouldn't he delay the news of Saddam death as long as possible to guarantee his re-election ?.Just a thought,any comments ?

Personally I don't think he will be re-elected regardless what now happens in Iraq. However, I don't live in the US so most of my information is based on news reports which might not be entirely accurate.------------------
He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife.
- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Mmmm... I think he might just make it if he can pull saddam out of the hat, or show us the head of bin Laden.But I also think that all is timing,and he's counting on that.
btw: where are you at the moment ?

I think he will end up like Hitler - dead.Frank

South Africa.------------------
He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife.
- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Well,that's not much of an observation...aren't you gonna end up dead too ?------------------
If you like this topic tell all your friends about it,if you don't,keep your mouth shut.

I'm from Italy.
Got a list on Yahoo for cool debates,wanna join ? It's free
To join, e-mail me at doriia2002@yahoo.com

Yes, I certainly will die. But I will probably live to a much older age and not die from lead poisoning.
Frank

I'm puzzled at why the others in this thread think Dubya will have a hard time at elections. How is the international media treating him? Have they neglected to point out that 70% of Americans currently approve of the war in Iraq and the way Bush is handling it? I think he has it in the bag.As for Saddam, who cares. As long as he isn't in power. It's Osama we need to hunt down.

The reason people have given him a high approval rating right now is because it's mentally easier to just support what we are doing than to not support it. We are there, doing what we are doing, and it's going well for our side, so we might as well support it. This is a common psychological phenomenon, and I can give you research to back it up if you would like.It's also true that half of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein was behind the Sept 11 attacks, and that is because the administration has done a great job with their spin and have misled the public."The Moron MajorityAn American Warlord Races to WaterlooBY TED RALLNow it's official: most Americans are idiots.Decades of budget cuts in education are finally yielding results, a fact confirmed by CNN's poll of March 16, which shows that an astonishing 51 percent of the public believe that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was responsible for the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.There is no reason to think that. None. True, George W. Bush has asserted the existence of indirect links between low-level Al Qaeda operatives and Iraqi intelligence officials - a lame lie repeatedly denied by the CIA - but even our professional prevaricator has never gone so far as to accuse Saddam of direct involvement in 9-11. Despite their increasingly tenuous grasp on reality, not even the Bush Administration's most fervent hawks deny that the secular dictator of Iraq is a mortal enemy of the Islamist extremists of Al Qaeda. No mainstream media outlet has ever reported otherwise.So why do these pinheads think such a thing?Simple: the official Bushie pretexts given for launching a unilateral invasion of Iraq don't stick. If Saddam was going to launch nukes or anthrax missiles in our direction, he would have done so during the last dozen years, while American warplanes were pulverizing his military installations with weekly bombing raids. He'd certainly let us have it this week, now that Bush is revving up the war he wanted all along - but he won't, because he can't.Furthermore, no one really believes that the GOP is interested in liberating the oppressed people of Iraq. America's role in the world, after all, typically involves funding dictators - as Bush is currently doing in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Tajikistan - not democrats.Like a befuddled chemistry lab student who works backwards from the answer in order to ensure the correct results, the Moron Majority have talked themselves into an excuse they can live with for a war they can't otherwise morally justify. Denial, after all, isn't just a river in Egypt.By a two-to-one margin, Americans think that their country should adhere to its tradition of attacking other countries in self-defense only, never preemptively. Thirty-seven percent say that they support an invasion of Iraq only with UN approval. This war against Iraq fulfills neither of these conditions, so Americans have managed to morph Bush's insinuations about a Saddam-Al Qaeda link into full-on blame.Sure, we're about to begin killing innocent men, women and children over in Iraq. It's not self-defense, so let's just call it "vengeance for 9-11." Does that work for you? Great. Osama's gotta be laughing like a hyena now that the heat's off."more at:Page not found

Well, I don't know about going well for our side,but I agree with you on the fact that people just don't want to think for themselves any more,they rather be thinked." A fool will always seek comfort, while a wise man will always seek virtue" Lao- Tze------------------
If you like this topic tell all your friends about it,if you don't,keep your mouth shut.

Hey Schrafinator, I thought you might want to justify a "psychological phenomenon" with a peer-review journal reference, not some liberal lashing out against America. But here's my response.

quote:

---

The reason people have given him a high approval rating right now is because it's mentally easier to just support what we are doing than to not support it.

---

Oh really? Well my "theory" on why people are protesting is because they dislike America and because there's a Republican in the White House. They are a vocal (and unreasonable) minority that apparently thinks Saddam Hussein is a nice guy and they crave the (disproportionate) attention they get from a media that tends to lean left and they will never be appeased. And if it were Hitler we were up against, they'd still be protesting the war. That's my psychological "theory" on the opposition and it's just as good as the politically-driven unscientific claptrap you just produced.Meanwhile in Iraq boys are being pulled out of their homes and told that if they don't fight they will be killed. In Nasira in a "hospital" some three thousand chemical suits and nerve agent antidotes were found. Gee, I don't suppose those could be used with the Iraqi VX that "doesn't exist" now could they? Ten days into the war and our troops have found things that Hans Blix couldn't find in the months he was there. Suprise, suprise. They've also violated most every aspect of the Geneva Convention they can violate *and* protestors are still lining up in American streets to show their solidarity with Saddam. Disgusting really. At least they aren't like the French protestors, who are said to be wearing Osama bin Laden t-shirts in their marches.Speaking of the French, it seems to me that they would have a great deal to gain economically if Saddam were to remain in power.Here's my online opinion quote, emphasis mine:------------NewsMax.comReality Stuns 'Human Shield': 'Saddam Was a Monster'Some of the appeasement activists who went to Iraq as "human shields" got shocked into common sense when reality dashed their passivist fantasies.Arnaud de Borchgrave, UPI's Editor at Large and a member of NewsMax's board of directors, wrote Friday from Jordan:A group of American anti-war demonstrators who came to Iraq with Japanese human shield volunteers made it across the border today with 14 hours of uncensored video, all shot without Iraqi government minders present.Kenneth Joseph, a young American pastor with the Assyrian Church of the East, told UPI the trip "had shocked me back to reality."Some of the Iraqis he interviewed on camera "told me they would commit suicide if American bombing didn't start. They were willing to see their homes demolished to gain their freedom from Saddam's bloody tyranny. They convinced me that Saddam was a monster the likes of which the world had not seen since Stalin and Hitler. He and his sons are sick sadists."Their tales of slow torture and killing made me ill, such as people put in a huge shredder for plastic products, feet first so they could hear their screams as bodies got chewed up from foot to head."Susan Sarandon, Michael Moore, Adrien Brody, Chris Cooper and Barbra Streisand, are you listening?http://www.newsmax.com/showinside.shtml?a=2003/3/24/95147[This message has been edited by gene90, 03-30-2003]

gene,In large part you may be correct about the motivations of those within the general population who disagree with the war at this time. That some believe Saddam was responsible for 9/11 is just knuckleheaded. 15 terrorists were Saudis for goodness sakes! It would seem an invasion of Saudi would be more justified. Anyway, there are those of us that believe the war is not justified based on the stated reasons (btw, what are the stated reasons?), and still more of us that believe Saddam aint worth a drop of our blood.Would you personally sacrifice your life to oust Saddam? Your children? Your neighbor's children? The guy is not worth it! He poses no imminent threat, although, if he did, I could concur with the reasoning behind the invasion. Perhaps that is one reason why there was little in the way of anti-war diatribe when we invaded Afghanistan shortly after 9/11 and took out the Taliban.How about another Vietnam? OK with you? 'cause it's OK with Bush, who recently stated, "we will win this war no matter how long it takes."And after America conquers Iraq, what kind of gov't do you suppose will be set up in a Muslim country ruled by the dictates of the Koran? I just don't see freedom of religion taking root there. Especially in light of the recent Fatwah against all U.S. interests issued by 600 Muslim clerics from all over the middle east. Indeed, this thing might be bigger than we think and I'm just not too excited about WWIII.Meanwhile, some see the U.S. as whirling out of control with no legal basis for invading Iraq. Recall that the U.S. submitted itself to the UN after the Gulf War. Why the U.S. didn't require Saddam to leave at that time is beyond me. But anyway, the U.S. is not keeping its word when it ignores the Due Process of the UN and acts on its own free will. Saying the UN is irrelevant (Bush did) is not the best way to establish credibility within the world community the U.S. wishes to rule.I'm tired of the U.S. being the world police. Here in the U.S., the gov't is creating a Police State to deal with the rude, inconsiderate, selfish, and materialistic populace. I wouldn't wish what our society is turning into on any nation.Blessed be the Peacemakers, my friend.

quote:

---

USA Drops Out Of Geneva Convention

​

by Jack Duggan

​

U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld recently complained that the Iraqis were violating the Geneva Convention when they showed captured U.S. servicemen on Iraqi TV. The worldwide western media immediately took up the complaint, airing his statement repeatedly and globally. They never saw the irony that as soon as that sound-bite was over, next on their news tapes were often segments showing Iraqi POWs surrendering to Coalition forces, regardless of how the POWsEfamilies in Baghdad would suffer at the hands of the Republican Guard if Iraqi-POW faces were recognized on CNN.

​

The western media refuse to expose US hypocrisy. Apparently they are so overwhelmed with gratitude for their privilege of traveling with Coalition units on the battlefield that they have become nothing more than lap-dogs.

​

Somehow, Iraqis are not covered by the Geneva Convention if the US decides that they are not. And the media doesn't dare go against them - not if it wants to keep filming in Iraq.

​

Thankfully, the US hasn't yet succeeded in stopping unpatriotic articles on the Internet, so you can read the truth here.

​

Since Rumsfeld, Bush and Blair are so adamant about the Geneva Convention not being violated by the Iraqis, they had better hope that they are not held to the same standard. Those that sent President Slobodan Milosevic to the World Court for war crimes could soon find themselves there as defendants.

​

The US government has sent over 600 men from Afghanistan to its military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in total defiance of the Geneva Convention. The conduct of the US is so outrageous that at least ten articles are being violated.

​

Here are some of the Articles of the (Fourth) Geneva Convention that the US government is ignoring:

​

ARTICLE 27

​

Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. They shall at all times be humanely treated, and shall be protected especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity.

​

The US government broke this resoundingly by parading the Guantanamo Bay prisoners before Western television cameras, just as the Iraqis have done on their television.

​

ARTICLE 31

​

No physical or moral coercion shall be exercised against protected persons, in particular to obtain information from them or from third parties.

​

....and....

​

ARTICLE 32

​

This prohibition applies not only to murder, torture, corporal punishments, mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not necessitated by the medical treatment of a protected person, but also to any other measures of brutality whether applied by civilian or military agents.

​

Afghani POWs were repeatedly shown to be forced to kneel for long times in chains on the ground, handcuffed behind their backs, suffering sensory deprivation by being forced to wear earphones and black goggles so they could neither see nor hear. The U.S. explained that this was a valuable interrogation method. We treat our food-animals better than that. A chicken has more rights than a POW held by the USA.

​

ARTICLE 45

​

Protected persons shall not be transferred to a Power which is not a party to the Convention.

​

Protected persons may be transferred by the Detaining Power only to a Power which is a party to the present Convention.

​

....and....

​

ARTICLE 49

​

Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.

​

The U.S. has forcefully transferred its Afghan POWs to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, which is not a party to the Convention, yet paradoxically claims that they have no rights under the Convention because they are not on Convention membersEsoil. Such hypocrisy is beyond even the Nazis and Stalinists of WWII.

​

ARTICLE 87

​

Canteens shall be installed in every place of internment, except where other suitable facilities are available. Their purpose shall be to enable internees to make purchases, at prices not higher than local market prices, of foodstuffs and articles of everyday use, including soap and tobacco, such as would increase their personal well-being and comfort.

​

The US government has decided such a facility cannot fit inside the chain-link dog pens prisoners are forced to occupy.

​

ARTICLE 97

​

Internees shall be permitted to retain articles of personal use. Monies, cheques, bonds, etc., and valuables in their possession may not be taken from them except in accordance with established procedure. Detailed receipts shall be given therefor.

​

Yet the "Taliban" POWs have been stripped of all their clothes, papers and possession, even photos of their parents.

​

ARTICLE 124

​

Internees shall not in any case be transferred to penitentiary establishments (prisons, penitentiaries, convict prisons, etc.) to undergo disciplinary punishment therein.

​

All POWs there have been punished by extreme sensory deprivation and long hours of interrogation and separation from their families and each other. The worst punishment of all is the US government denying that they are even covered under the Geneva Convention and thus have no rights whatsoever.

​

Someday, the US government will invent a new term to call its citizens who are dissenters so as to deny them their Constitutional rights and likewise lock them up without due process to torture them for months to extract information necessary - for state security. It is then that only the government will decide which of its citizens are worthy - of any rights at all.

​

ARTICLE 125

​

They shall have permission to read and write, likewise to send and receive letters. Parcels and remittances of money, however, may be withheld from them until the completion of their punishment; such consignments shall meanwhile be entrusted to the Internee Committee, who will hand over to the infirmary the perishable goods contained in the parcels.

​

The POWsEfamilies have no idea if they are even alive.

​

Article 127

​

The transfer of internees shall always be effected humanely. As a general rule, it shall be carried out by rail or other means of transport, and under conditions at least equal to those obtaining for the forces of the Detaining Power in their changes of station. If, as an exceptional measure, such removals have to be effected on foot, they may not take place unless the internees are in a fit state of health, and may not in any case expose them to excessive fatigue.

​

On their flights to Cuba, POWs were forced wear chains and hoods so they had no idea what was happening to them. That was intentional so they would suffer mental collapse and be more pliable to US interrogators. This goes much farther than exposing them to "excessive fatigue." It is downright torture reminiscent of the Hanoi Hilton.

​

How does the USA get away with the above outrage? It does so by redefining reality:

​

The US says that the POWs are not POWs at all; they are now to be called, "unlawful combatants."

​

Unlawful combatants don't deserve any human rights whatsoever because the biggest gun on the planet says so. It doesn't matter that every other nation calls a POW a POW, the USA is above other nations, it is above the law, it is above its own citizens and it is above even reality.

​

US President Bush loves pointing out that, "America is liberating Iraqis from human rights abuses by Saddam Hussein." However America abuses the rights of anyone it so chooses by just by giving them a different label.

---

Absolutely amazing Zephan...we have found common ground...I agree with a lot of your post.

By the same token, the CIA is also torturing and killing prisoners of war,namely two last week died in Afghanistan from blunt trauma to the head.But don't worry, there's more to come.Torturing of prisoners isn't something new,it's been happening since the begining of time and it's not gonna stop anytime soon either.Geneva or not.
The atrocities commited by the US govt go largely unnoticed,because as you probably already noticed, the media is completely monopolized by the status quo.There is nothing new under the sun and war is a terrible thing.Always.------------------
If you like this topic tell all your friends about it,if you don't,keep your mouth shut.