Saddam Sentenced to Death By Hanging

[hugo]

Your sheer degree of bowing to revisionist liberal history is disturbing. Truman was the President, not Ike. The decision was his to make. Truman had no convincing evidence the Japanese were going to surrender even if he had allowed them to surrender with the condition that the emperor remained. Maybe we should have let Germany surrender with the condition Hitler remained. The bombing to this day hardly effects American/Japanese relations. The decision was a no-brainer that is only questioned today by the loony left. The same morons who thought Marx had good ideas. The same same morons who can not identify a supply/demand curve.

 

Truman's sentiments back when liberals were not all socialist pussies.

 

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/flip_books/index.php?tldate=1945-08-09&groupid=3705&titleid=&pagenumber=1&collectionid=ihow

 

"When you have to deal with a beast you have to treat him as a beast" HST Amazing how that sentiment applies to our times.

[TooDrunkToFuck]

Your sheer degree of bowing to revisionist liberal history is disturbing. Truman was the President, not Ike. The decision was his to make. Truman had no convincing evidence the Japanese were going to surrender even if he had allowed them to surrender with the condition that the emperor remained.

 

 

LMFAO! Disagreeing with the president = "revisionist." Alrighty, then. So what about all these disgusting modern Russian and German revisionist liberals who've turned their backs on the teachings of Hitler and Stalin? How dare they attempt to revise history from what the leaders of those countries once taught!

 

 

The bombing to this day hardly effects American/Japanese relations. The decision was a no-brainer that is only questioned today by the loony left. The same morons who thought Marx had good ideas. The same same morons who can not identify a supply/demand curve.

 

 

Oh, so Chester W. Nimitz, a fleet commander of WW2, who said this:

 

"...The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace the atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan...."

 

 

And William D. Leahy, Truman's own Cheif of Staff, who said this:

 

"The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender"

 

 

... Were insane liberals?

 

 

What about John Bolton, ambassador to the UN, who was nominated by none other than good 'ol G-Dubyah? Here's what he says about the bombings:

 

"A fair reading of the treaty [the Rome Statute concerning the ICC], for example, leaves the objective observer unable to answer with confidence whether the United States was guilty of war crimes for its aerial bombing campaigns over Germany and Japan in World War II. Indeed, if anything, a straightforward reading of the language probably indicates that the court would find the United States guilty. A fortiori, these provisions seem to imply that the United States would have been guilty of a war crime for dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This is intolerable and unacceptable."

 

 

Is he a big liberal?

 

 

 

Let's face facts: you're a nationalist. You assume that your group, country, whatever is right in virtually all cases, and will defend their actions in the face of all logic and common sense. And beyond that, you tend to see anyone who isn't a diehard nationalist as a charicatured "liberal", which entails hating Christians, wanting to stir up trouble, and likely supporting Islamic terrorists and/or being a pinko/communist/whatever.

[snafu]

Original Article

 

It has just been announced Saddam has been sentenced to death by hanging for crimes against humanity.

 

Do you feel this verdict is fair? Was this trial based on propaganda? Is he a victim of the media or does he fully deserve his fate?

 

Phantom that's a pretty lame question. He killed over 6000 Kurds. Not to mention all the Iraqis. Did anybody think he was going to get off scott free?

Do I think it's fair? Fuck yeah its fair.

 

Propaganda? here comes the bullshit theories again.

It has nothing to do with American politics. The trial was not timed by our elections. They could have gone longer but the Iraqis don't' have to put up with liberal rederic. So they didn't last that long.

And who was to benefit with the verdict? Not Bush not Kerry not Hillary not McCain not anybody but the Iraqi citizens.

[Hamza123]

Ya...that comment about the Iraqis wasn't very well thought out, now was it?

When you consider the Iraqi occupation of the sovereign nation of Kuwait was the spark that started this whole mess.

 

Are you fucking shitting me?

 

When did the Iraqi people have any say in the occupation? Same thing with the US People... I never defended Saddam or his administration, I am simply saying that Bush has slaughtered more people than Saddam.

 

Saddam deserves to be killed as much as I dislike the death sentence, this is a willing exception, and it shouldn't be used as propganda, instead as a justice to the Iraqi people.

 

You don't need to tell me that even when Bush is gone, the war will continue. I know that. Bush has a totally fucked up preception of war. He wants Oil. When the next president carries on the war, maybe he won't be like Bush, maybe he will. Lets just hope Americans can see Bush's mistakes and guide the next president on the right path.

[Hamza123]

You can't possibly be serious with that latter comment. The only real difference now is that there are things like the internet to spread info around faster. The 30's, 40's, and 50's featured figures like George Orwell, Alduous Huxley, and Edward R. Murrow, who were far greater spreaders of the truth than virtually anyone alive today. Thing is, propaganda far outweighed voices of reason, and people were too lazy to dig deeper than choosing which popular peice of propaganda sounded the catchiest to them. Same thing happens today.

 

I am dead serious my friend... The "real difference" makes all the difference... The internet.

 

How about you show me video of how helicopters and fighter planes killed innocent civillians in the 30's, 40's, and 50's? I can show you some from Bush's "War on Terror" good-sir.

[Phantom]

Phantom that's a pretty lame question. He killed over 6000 Kurds. Not to mention all the Iraqis. Did anybody think he was going to get off scott free?

Do I think it's fair? Fuck yeah its fair.

 

Propaganda? here comes the bullshit theories again.

It has nothing to do with American politics. The trial was not timed by our elections. They could have gone longer but the Iraqis don't' have to put up with liberal rederic. So they didn't last that long.

And who was to benefit with the verdict? Not Bush not Kerry not Hillary not McCain not anybody but the Iraqi citizens.

 

Hey Snafu. You may not have noticed but I never state my opinion in the original thread- only present the variety of positions relating to a particular topic. After a few members chime in, I share my opinions. Seems to make things more interesting. If you looked through the post a little bit, my opinion was to hang him high.

[snafu]

Hey Snafu. You may not have noticed but I never state my opinion in the original thread- only present the variety of positions relating to a particular topic. After a few members chime in, I share my opinions. Seems to make things more interesting. If you looked through the post a little bit, my opinion was to hang him high.

 

That was pretty blunt of me. Sorry.

[smutt butt]

Original Article

 

It has just been announced Saddam has been sentenced to death by hanging for crimes against humanity.

 

Do you feel this verdict is fair? Was this trial based on propaganda? Is he a victim of the media or does he fully deserve his fate?

Why not strap a bomb on him and let him blow himself up so he and allah can have some man love??

[hugo]

Ignore little pinko-commie boy with his childish Zinnian view of history. You get the government you deserve. The Japanese were a bunch of xenophobes who thought their leader was literally a God. They waged aggressive warfare on mankind. Their emperor was their leader. Conditional surrender was not an option anymore than it was for Hitler. Truman, a liberal, made the correct decision. Truman was a man who risked his presidency in an attempt to pass a civil rights act 17 years before a similar act was finally passed. He was about the last rational liberal. The history of total warfare is that a developed weapon will be used. The history of total warfare is citizens are fair game. Ignore the Monday morning quarterbacks who question a great victory. Japan was defeated, Stalin received a strong warning and the fucking Japs got what they deserved. My 90 year old Filipino father-in-law hates the Japs to this day. Try reading a little history, might start with a book titled The Rape of Nanking. The A bomb taught them bastards a little humility.

[TooDrunkToFuck]

One thing I forgot to address is this gem of a quote here:

 

"When you have to deal with a beast you have to treat him as a beast"

 

 

Basically, "might makes right." I prefer this one, from a guy who I feel is a little more qualified than Truman to make deep philosophical statements. His name is Frederich Nietsche:

 

"Battle not with monsters lest you become a monster, and when you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares back."

[smutt butt]

I think iraq was better off with saddam. The animals that live there need someone who rules with an iron fist. Without someone like him they will just run wild and suicide bomb each other.

[hugo]

There are no rules in war or a street fight. Might does make right. The winners write the laws and execute the losers.

[TooDrunkToFuck]

Ignore little pinko-commie boy with his childish Zinnian view of history.

 

 

LMFAO!!!! You never disappoint with your comedy act. You'd be a shoo-in to play Joseph McCarthy next time there's a Cold War movie.

 

 

 

 

You get the government you deserve. The Japanese were a bunch of xenophobes who thought their leader was literally a God. They waged aggressive warfare on mankind. Their emperor was their leader. Conditional surrender was not an option anymore than it was for Hitler. Truman, a liberal, made the correct decision. Truman was a man who risked his presidency in an attempt to pass a civil rights act 17 years before a similar act was finally passed. He was about the last rational liberal. The history of total warfare is that a developed weapon will be used. The history of total warfare is citizens are fair game. Ignore the Monday morning quarterbacks who question a great victory. Japan was defeated, Stalin received a strong warning and the fucking Japs got what they deserved. My 90 year old Filipino father-in-law hates the Japs to this day. Try reading a little history, might start with a book titled The Rape of Nanking. The A bomb taught them bastards a little humility.

 

 

... As usual, you just state a bunch of bullshit without evidence to back it up, based on your strong nationalistic pride. I can imagine that if you were born in Iraq, you'd probably be bitching about how Saddam was a great leader and people there are now engaging in revisionist history. And your little "ignore (insert statement here)" act is amusing, too. You're almost the epitome of the stereotypical far right nationalist, right down to your attempts to tell people not to pay attention to any opinions that differ from your own.

[TooDrunkToFuck]

There are no rules in war or a street fight. Might does make right. The winners write the laws and execute the losers.

 

 

An interesting paradox. You nationalistic "look for any reason to start a war" guys always talk about how war calls for fighting fire with fire, and yet ... You also maintain the US' moral superiority over like everywhere else and will try to paint a rosy picture of even the most inhumane acts of the US government, while simultaneously condemning other countries who engage in similar acts.

 

 

Look, if you're a war-monger, at least embrace it. Don't try to pretend your fellow war-mongers are great and noble in all their ventures. At least be honest with yourself, like one of the co-creators of the nuclear bomb. Y'know, the one who, upon watching that first detonation, remarked:

 

"Now we're all sons of bitches."

[hugo]

Pinko-commie boy can do nothing but label and call names. He is still sad that we won the Cold War and freed the world from the tyranny ispired by Marx. In fact he even prefers the fascist Japanese (fascism is another form of socialism) to the free enterprise system. Fortunately Marxists like him are now relegated to complaining on the internet.

 

Attack another nation you better be prepared for the results. Pinko commie boy and GW Bush neither understand this.

[hugo]

He is quite a nut. I am a paleo-con (he does not understand the meaning of that word) But once you get in a war you better win it.

[TooDrunkToFuck]

Pinko-commie boy can do nothing but label and call names.

 

 

Phhh ... BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!! ROTFLMFAO!!!!! Did you actually stop to think before you typed that?

 

 

He is still sad that we won the Cold War and freed the world from the tyranny ispired by Marx. In fact he even prefers the fascist Japanese (fascism is another form of socialism) to the free enterprise system. Fortunately Marxists like him are now relegated to complaining on the internet.

 

 

LOL, all this after I've explained my anarchist-leaning social views repeatedly. Just because I correct Hugo's bullshit notions where he confuses Marx with Lenin or ignores what various US officials of WW2 say about the nuke, he assumes I must be in league with "the enemy."

 

It's very similar to how Bill 'O Reilly essentially argues that you're either with the president or you're with the terrorists, or how Joseph McCarthy claimed that anyone who disagreed with him is a communist.

 

 

 

Attack another nation you better be prepared for the results. Pinko commie boy and GW Bush neither understand this.

 

 

Yes, war is often a disgusting and brutal business. But don't try to pretend brutal measures are justified in cases where they were not. Otherwise, I can just say that the Nazis were correct to initiate the Holocaust, since there were people who resisted them. That's why there's such a thing as war crimes. Some acts are brutal without neccessity. You just see things from such a single-minded, ethnocentric, monovision perspective that you see it as a black-and-white "for the war or cowards." You don't bother to consider the complexities of war.

[hugo]

Marxists use the term Leninist to describe the tolitarian state that always results when a populace falls under the sway of a Marxist. Except the Trotskyites who use the term Stalinism, Commie boy's arguments all come from Marxist apoligists and Howard Zinn. They believe in a socialist one world government thus their use of the term nationalist, as if it is a slur, when debating their enemies( i.e. believers in the free market and individual liberty).

 

Someday commie boy might have a job and have to pay taxes. His opinions may change then.

[TooDrunkToFuck]

Marxists use the term Leninist to describe the tolitarian state that always results when a populace falls under the sway of a Marxist.

Except the Trotskyites who use the term Stalinism, Commie boy's arguments all come from Marxist apoligists and Howard Zinn.

 

 

LOL, so all the arguments from US officials and US history books (among other US historical texts; in fact virtually all of them) are from "Marxist apologists?" It's so amazingly funny how you mentioned name-calling and labelling.

 

 

Let's get this straight; all you have to do is take a basic Sociology or Humanities class to learn about Marx's actual ideas. Or just read them straight up. A true Marxist would not have "sway" over a government in the first place, since Marx beleived in a classless society, IOW no one held "sway" over anyone else. Stalin was a Leninist ... Same with every other 20th century "communist." Lenin took Marx's ideas, inserted the notion that you need an elite ruling class to serve as a catalyst towards a classless society (an idea that Marx obviously would've been against), and every "communist" dictator since then ran with the idea.

 

 

 

They believe in a socialist one world government thus their use of the term nationalist, as if it is a slur, when debating their enemies( i.e. believers in the free market and individual liberty)

 

 

The hell are you talking about? I'm for individual liberty in the TRUE sense: if you're hurting no one else, the government has no right to say what you're doing is illegal. That is my view.

 

 

I call you a nationalist because you ignore all common sense and logic in support of the country or ideology you identify with. You see things in a black and white sense. You are the epitome of ethnocentrism. And I've hardly seen any socialists who excessively use the term "nationalist." You just saw that I was calling you one, and wanted to try another avenue to lump me in with your "enemies."

 

 

You don't even debate the facts. You just make a bunch of bullshit statements linking people who beleive one thing to people who beleive other things, with more logical falacies than a Joseph McCarthy speech.

[hugo]

Some real history folks. Just in case someone else is as dumb as commie boy.

 

JAPAN SURRENDERS

(August 10-15, 1945)

Events: Dawn of the Atomic Era, 1945

 

Prior to the atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, elements existed within the Japanese government that were trying to find a way to end the war. In June and July 1945, Japan attempted to enlist the help of the Soviet Union to serve as an intermediary in negotiations. No direct communication occurred with the United States about peace talks, but American leaders knew of these maneuvers because the United States for a long time had been intercepting and decoding many internal Japanese diplomatic communications. From these intercepts, the United States learned that some within the Japanese government advocated outright surrender. A few diplomats overseas cabled home to urge just that.

 

From the replies these diplomats received from Tokyo, the United States learned that anything Japan might agree to would not be a surrender so much as a "negotiated peace" involving numerous conditions. These conditions probably would require, at a minimum, that the Japanese home islands remain unoccupied by foreign forces and even allow Japan to retain some of its wartime conquests in East Asia. Many within the Japanese government were extremely reluctant to discuss any concessions, which would mean that a "negotiated peace" to them would only amount to little more than a truce where the Allies agreed to stop attacking Japan. After twelve years of Japanese military aggression against China and over three and one-half years of war with the United States (begun with the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor), American leaders were reluctant to accept anything less than a complete Japanese surrender.

 

The one possible exception to this was the personal status of the emperor himself. Although the Allies had long been publicly demanding "unconditional surrender," in private there had been some discussion of exempting the emperor from war trials and allowing him to remain as ceremonial head of state. In the end, at Potsdam, the Allies (right) went with both a "carrot and a stick," trying to encourage those in Tokyo who advocated peace with assurances that Japan eventually would be allowed to form its own government, while combining these assurances with vague warnings of "prompt and utter destruction" if Japan did not surrender immediately. No explicit mention was made of the emperor possibly remaining as ceremonial head of state. Japan publicly rejected the Potsdam Declaration, and on July 25, 1945, President Harry S. Truman gave the order to commence atomic attacks on Japan as soon as possible.

 

Following the bombing of Hiroshima on August 6, 1945 (right), the Japanese government met to consider what to do next. The emperor had been urging since June that Japan find some way to end the war, but the Japanese Minister of War and the heads of both the Army and the Navy held to their position that Japan should wait and see if arbitration via the Soviet Union might still produce something less than a surrender. Military leaders also hoped that if they could hold out until the ground invasion of Japan began, they would be able to inflict so many casualties on the Allies that Japan still might win some sort of negotiated settlement. Next came the virtually simultaneous arrival of news of the Soviet declaration of war on Japan of August 8, 1945, and the atomic bombing of Nagasaki of the following day. Another Imperial Council was held the night of August 9-10, and this time the vote on surrender was a tie, 3-to-3. For the first time in a generation, the emperor (right) stepped forward from his normally ceremonial-only role and personally broke the tie, ordering Japan to surrender. On August 10, 1945, Japan offered to surrender to the Allies, the only condition being that the emperor be allowed to remain the nominal head of state.

 

Planning for the use of additional nuclear weapons continued even as these deliberations were ongoing. On August 10, Leslie Groves reported to the War Department that the next bomb, another plutonium weapon, would be "ready for delivery on the first suitable weather after 17 or 18 August." Following the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, only two targets remained from the original list: Kokura Arsenal and the city of Niigata. Groves therefore requested that additional targets be added to the target list. His deputy, General Kenneth Nichols, suggested Tokyo. Truman, however, ordered an immediate halt to atomic attacks while surrender negotiations were ongoing. As the Secretary of Commerce Henry Wallace recorded in his diary, Truman remarked that he did not like the idea of killing "all those kids."

 

On August 12, the United States announced that it would accept the Japanese surrender, making clear in its statement that the emperor could remain in a purely ceremonial capacity only. Debate raged within the Japanese government over whether to accept the American terms or fight on. Meanwhile, American leaders were growing impatient, and on August 13 conventional air raids resumed on Japan. Thousands more Japanese civilians died while their leaders delayed. The Japanese people learned of the surrender negotiations for the first time when, on August 14, B-29s showered Tokyo with thousands of leaflets containing translated copies of the American reply of August 12. Later that day, the emperor called another meeting of his cabinet and instructed them to accept the Allied terms immediately, explaining "I cannot endure the thought of letting my people suffer any longer"; if the war did not end "the whole nation would be reduced to ashes."

 

The only question remaining now was if Japan's military leaders would allow the emperor to surrender. Loyalty to the emperor was an absolute in the Japanese military, but so was the refusal to surrender, and now that the two had come into conflict, open rebellion was a possible result. The emperor recorded a message in which he personally accepted the Allied surrender terms, to be broadcast over Japanese radio the following day. This way everyone in Japan would know that surrender was the emperor's personal will. Some within the Japanese military actually attempted to steal this recording before it could be broadcast, while others attempted a more general military coup in order to seize power and continue the war. Other elements of the Japanese military remained loyal to the emperor. The Minister of War, General Anami Korechika, personally supported continuing the war, but he also could not bring himself to openly rebel against his emperor. The strength of his dilemma was such that he opted for suicide as the only honorable way out. In the end, his refusal to assist the coup plotters was instrumental in their defeat by elements within the military that remained loyal to the emperor.

 

On August 15, 1945, the emperor's broadcast announcing Japan's surrender was heard via radio all over Japan. For most of his subjects, it was the first time that they had ever heard his voice. The emperor explained that "the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage," and that "the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb." Over the next few weeks, Japan and the United States worked out the details of the surrender, and on September 2, 1945, the formal surrender ceremony took place on the deck of the U.S.S. Missouri.

 

 

Notice, boys and girls, that the Japanese Imperial Council vote was a tie even after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Don't fall for Zinnian history.

[smutt butt]

It's election propaganda.

 

Shrubbite grandstanding.

 

The guy wants a firing squad.

 

Let him have his dying wish.

How about a lottery for the iraqis where the winner gets to pull the trigger??

[TooDrunkToFuck]

Some real history folks. Just in case someone else is as dumb as commie boy.

 

 

"Commie boy" ... AND THE US LEADERS OF WORLD WAR TWO, WHO I'M GETTING MY INFO FROM. Not your nationalistic right-wing nutjob sources.

 

 

 

 

 

Notice, boys and girls, that the Japanese Imperial Council vote was a tie even after the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Don't fall for Zinnian history.

 

 

 

Notice it was after The Russians declared war on them, when the one thing they were holding out hope for, despite how badly they were losing (again, according to the people OF the US military at the time) was assistance from the Russians. Now, exactly how was it "neccessary" to drop atomic bombs immediately when there were no immediate invasion plans, rather than wait for the Soviets to answer? Obviously, it was NOT, as several people in official military positions during WW2, and even our current UN ambassador will testify.

[Msixty]

to truly know what the pain of my 'Other' choice would be, you have to have been burnt severly and had it cleaned out by some toothbrush device......

 

first, you give him severe grease burns (McDonald's fryer type) all over his body, every inch. (followed by a few blowtourch touchups)

 

then, you let it burn for 15 min. and piss on him at will.

 

next, you cover him in Comet powder (that blue shit you clean your bathroom with)

 

after he is covered from head to toe, you wait for it to soak up the body fluids and soak into the wounds (pissing more may speed this process up)

 

finally, you use steel wool to 'clean' the wounds, pressing firm and going in random movements.

 

not enough? try finishing with super hot tabasco and a slow acting nerve agent.

 

Burn the body after he dies.