Saddam hanged (12/29 - 10 p.m. EST)

[westmanguy]

OK, first off:

Lets stop the death penalty arguement, no-one can ever win this debate. I said before I prefer life in prison w/o parole for a awful person. BUT if that person is a huge threat they have to be eliminated.

Now about your media comment?

Have you read Culture Wars? This is a book by Bill O'Reilly, yes alot of people hate him (even though SO many people agree with him), but he points out ALOT of media bs.

I'll give you some examples, of our biast left-wing media.
(using the US as an example here, but the CBC, CTV-GM, and Global are sympathetic to secular progressive causes to).

9% of Americans are atheists.

1 in 5 people who work in the media (20%), are atheists, this undoubtebly explains how if religion, Christianity more importantly, is denounced by the media.

For example:

The New York Times (the worst of them all), went all out crazy after a nativity scene was put up in a museum in California.

A few months later they did an article PRAISING an artist who had depicted Mary, mother of Jesus, nude covered in 'you know what'.
They called it artistic expression.

Thats a religion example.

Now, they support or are sympathetic, or don't have a stance on secular progressive causes.

For example, at the time, 74% of Americans agreed with going to Iraq (once again, at the time, March, 03), 3/4 Americans supported it. The news that night dipicted riots and protests against the war and had no mention of the poll or Americans who supported it.

Same-sex marriage in Canada. Its been passed, but it was and still is a contreversial issue. The media in Canada gave an open mike to gay-rights groups.

When did I ever see a group protesting same-sex marriage on the news? Rarely.

Those are few things, so what I am saying is, all media is supportive or sympathetic to secular progressive, left, causes. AND they do not at all represent the people.

Thats why I get sick of the media. FNC, does the facts, but they put a traditionalist view on it. Hence the fact they are the only right news source, and people, including me, swarm to FNC, because its different from what the other news sources feed me.

And I am a supporter of the Conservatives, but when I watch the news, am I the only one the feels the negative spin on Harper and the conservatives, and the positive spin on the Liberals?

Media cannot be trusted, and fact is most people agree that what the media says is not truthful or is deceiving.

[Chumley]

"Well this is just going from bad to worse, isn't it? Hussein is now going to be made into a martyr who will live for decades, rather than just become a ragged old man who becomes irrelevant in prison like Manual Noriega."

Agreed, 100%, Mexicanuck.

They have to do Hussein what they did to ex-leader Nicolae Ceausescu in Romania. They quietly took him outside and executed him, with no prior notice to the media. Hell, old Nicolae didn't even get a trial!

None of Ceacsescu's supporters had a sniff of when it happened, and therefore couldn't really react. There was little media coverage at all. The execution was done quietly , without ceremony. The ultimate insult to a pig who murdered so many.

They should carry out the Hussein execution swifty, and then announce it in a very matter-of-fact manner a few days later. No martyr status that way. No throngs of supporters storming the building in front of live cameras.

Better yet, why not throw him in jail with a bunch of Kurds? He'd last about 10 minutes.

Buh bye, Saddam.

[hugh]

This thread is about Saddam hanging. NOT atheism, not the media etc.

Next post that is not on topic will be deleted

[Mexicanuck]

Originally Posted by westmanguy

9% of Americans are atheists.

1 in 5 people who work in the media (20%), are atheists, this undoubtebly explains how if religion, Christianity more importantly, is denounced by the media.

Please, don't get into a discussion about which religious views are controlling the media. But look at the logic. If 80% of people who work in the media are not atheist, wouldn't it be atheists who were getting the bad press?

Originally Posted by westmanguy

Have you read Culture Wars? This is a book by Bill O'Reilly, yes alot of people hate him (even though SO many people agree with him), but he points out ALOT of media bs.

Let's not assume that atheists are left of centre. Don't forget that the CCF, predecessor to the NDP, had clergy as its early leaders. Most declared atheists who I know are clearly right of centre politically.

Now I happen to think that there are more atheists in the general population than people who would acknowledge their atheism. Ask a lot of people who identy themselves as Christians to explain the doctrines of their church (if they attend one) and I suspect you would find a lot of blank stares followed by stumbled comments. Heck, I even know of one person at DHC who didn't know the reason for the word Xmas.

Then ask those people whether they truely believe in a virgin birth, a death and physical resurrection, Jonah living inside the belly of a whale, Methuselah having his first son at 100 years of age and living to 969 years old, etc. and you will lose them. Yet I bet a lot of them would continue to report themselves as being "Christian".

Most media sell entertainment. They believe that conflict is entertaining. Some groups provide media with what they want, demonstrations of conflict. Media attend their events. People don't buy newspapers or watch the news to see people sitting in their living rooms quietly discussing things, so media don't cover that.

The media also believe that death and destruction is entertaining. Suggesting the media supports left wing politics on the basis of covering protests is like suggesting the media supports bad drivers and arsonists because they cover motor vehicle accidents and fires.

By the way, would this be the same Bill O'Reilly who had you believe that Cashman simply sentenced Hulett to 60 days? The same Bill O'Reilly who said that Cashman had said in court that he no longer believed in punishment? (When the transcript of the sentencing showed no such comment.)

[westmanguy]

We are not allowed to talk about related issues, like media influence, so I will have to keep myself muzzled here. (sigh.)

BTW, he is getting hanged today, heard it on the news.

Sorry folks, it won't be PPV accessable.

Now I see this on topic: mexicanuck, and others, where did you get the idea the US helped and aided Sadam and other dicatators.

You have been watching Michael Moore.... haven't you?

[Mexicanuck]

Now I see this on topic: mexicanuck, and others, where did you get the idea the US helped and aided Sadam and other dicatators.

You're joking, right?

[westmanguy]

Are you talking about oil relations.

Please tell me you got this from a source other then Michael Moore.

Don't get me wrong, George W, is the worst President, but I would like some back up before I believe in the conspiracy theory that he is in bed with Saudia Arabia and Saddam.

[Mexicanuck]

Westmanguy, there is no need to sigh and feel muzzled. We can continue the discussion about atheist control of the media at:

http://www.digitalhome.ca/forum/show...105#post481105

And if we need to spin off the discussion about the credibility of Bill O'Reilly, we can do that too.

[james99]

BAGHDAD, Iraq - The official witnesses to Saddam Hussein's impending execution gathered Friday in Baghdad's fortified Green Zone in final preparation for his hanging, as state television broadcast footage of his regime's atrocities.

[westmanguy]

I would like to see this on TV. If Al-Jazeera airs it, it will swarm the web.

Its hsitorical to, handing over Saddam to the Iraqi's.

The Iraqi gov. is executing Saddam, not the US troops.

[cyclo]

Originally Posted by westmanguy

Now I see this on topic: mexicanuck, and others, where did you get the idea the US helped and aided Sadam and other dicatators.

All you have to do is look at Saddam's entry in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadam_Hussein

In the link above you will also find this image of Saddam and Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands... that's when the US was still using Saddam as a pawn to fight Iran during the Iran - Iraq war.

[Mexicanuck]

Originally Posted by westmanguy

Please tell me you got this from a source other then Michael Moore.

The following is the list of directors of the Cato Institute. I think you will agree these people could hardly be considered "far-left". They are more in the ilk of Judge Cashman.

K. Tucker Andersen, Senior Consultant, Cumberland Associates LLC
Frank Bond, Chairman, The Foundation Group
Edward H. Crane, President, Cato Institute
Richard J. Dennis, President, Dennis Trading Group
Ethelmae C. Humphreys, Chairman, Tamko Roofing Products, Inc.
David H. Koch, Executive Vice President, Koch Industries, Inc.
John C. Malone, Chairman, Liberty Media Corporation
William A. Niskanen, Chairman, Cato Institute
David H. Padden, President, Padden & Company
Lewis E. Randall, Board Member, E*Trade Financial
Howard S. Rich, President, U.S. Term Limits
Donald G. Smith, President, Donald Smith & Co., Inc.
Frederick W. Smith, Chairman & CEO, FedEx Corporation
Jeffrey S. Yass, Managing Director, Susquehanna International Group, LLP
Fred Young, Former Owner, Young Radiator Company

The Cato Institute had this to say in 1985 about US involvement with dictators.

"Ill-considered hyperbole with respect to right-wing autocratic governments places the United States in an awkward, even hypocritical posture. Equally unfortunate is the extensive and at times highly visible material assistance that Washington gives such regimes. For more than three decades, the United States helped train and equip the military force that the Somoza family used to dominate Nicaragua and systematically loot that nation. Similarly, the American government provided lavish military hardware to the shah of Iran as well as "security" and "counter insurgency" training to SAVAK, the monarch's infamous secret police. Throughout the same period Washington gave similar assistance to a succession of Brazilian military governments, a parade of Guatemalan dictatorships, the junta that ruled Greece from 1967 to 1974, and several other repressive governments. Most recently, the United States gave the Marcos regime economic and military aid totaling more than $227 million, plus millions more in payments for the military installations at Clark Field and Subic Bay. Despite ample signs of that government's increasingly shaky tenure, the Reagan administration ask Congress to increase aid by nearly 20 percent." (bolding added)

That is just a start. Don't forget US support for Pinochet in Chile, support for the Contras against the elected Sandanista government (Independent electoral observers from around the world, including groups from the UN as well as many observers from Western Europe and independent human rights organizations, found that the elections had been fair.), Batista in Cuba, Papa Doc Duvalier, Noriega in Panama, Suharto in Indonesia, Zia al-Haqq in Pakistan.

[westmanguy]

Ok, I take it back.

The Bushes aided Saddam and used him.

Now they are cutting him lose.

still, he was an awful leader...

[JohnnyCanuck]

where did you get the idea the US helped and aided Sadam and other dicatators

As questionable as US involvement with dictators in its own backyard was, the blood on its hands from their support of Saddam Hussein is even worse.

There is ample proof that the US supplied Saddam with chemical weapons. In fact, the US Senate (Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs -- which oversees American exports policy) in 1992 documented shipments of anthrax, VX nerve gas, West Nile fever germs, botulism, germs similar to tuberculosis and pneumonia and bacteria incuding Other bacteria sold included brucella melitensis, which damages major organs, and clostridium perfringens, which causes gas gangrene to Iraq right up until March 1992.

Exports of chemical and bioligical weapons started during Reagan's presidency in 1980 and continued until after the Gulf War. The prevailing belief is that the US supplied the weapons hoping that Iraq would use chemical and biological weapons against Iran. Which they did. However, while the US probably never intended that those weapons be used against the Kurds, they certainly didn't do anything to stop Hussein from gassing Kurds. Further, they continued to supply chemical and biological weapons after the gas attacks on Kalabja in 1988.

The American government's actions through the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations with respect to supporting Saddam Hussein were vile and evil. There is no defence of purposefully supplying horrifying weapons of mass destruction to be used against a sovereign nation (Iran) nor to be used to oppress an ethnic minority (Kurdistan). Yet, America not only actively participated in supplying such weapons, they never lifted a finger to stop their use and continued to supply such weapons even after their own NATO and regional allies (including Canada) went to war against Iraq in 1990.

IMO, the US and Britain invaded Iraq in advance of securing international co-operation (NATO or the UN) in 2003 because of a fear that an international inspection agency or military co-operative force would uncover evidence of American and British complicity in Saddam Hussein's atrocities.

[eljay]

U.S. Diplomatic and Commercial Relationships with Iraq, 1980 - 2 August 1990