Saddam's appointment with the hangman

[MetalPlatypus]

Leaders like this always have their followers. There is always a fringe group who believes in some evil leader no matter what rottenness he does. Heck, there are still people who idolize Hitler, even in this day&time. So, the fact that there might be people who think Saddam is terrific doesn't surprise me..... Although I think the concept of Saddam being someone's hero is totally insane. And, if these people have a deathwish and want to follow in Saddam's footsteps the same fate awaits them, too.

I agree with Koko in that leaders who do this type of mayhem deserve the death penalty--like terrorists who commit mass murder&serial killers. They know what they are doing.

George Bush also has his followers. And although his popularity is rapdily waning, there was a time when his popularity was at its heights. And that was the time when USA attacked Afganistan and Iraq. The "war against terrorism" is nothing but a camouflage to hide the expansion politics of USA and it has made the world much more dangerous place to be. It is time for the European Union and "coalition of the willing" to set limits to George Bush and his government. It´s not gonna happen though, because that would mean a conflict within NATO. Basically it´s all fucked up. And all we can do is watch from aside when theh world limps to its grave slowly but surely....

[NeonVomit]

Bump! On next page!

@Morgana, I agree with you about Last Judgement---All of us will have lots of explaining to do to the Man upstairs. People may find that the humanist philosophy became their undoing.

Why would a humanist philosophy be an undoing?

I agree with stealth, I think the man upstairs has plenty of explaining to do himself.

Provided he exists. If he doesn't, then expecting people to be punished for what they did in life after they die is utterly futile.

[stratohawk]

Aah, here we have another facettte of our discussion: The existence of God. Well I think it would be senseless to start arguing about that, because no one in this board would change his/her mind about that.

I believe in God, but that's not the reason why I'm against death penalty. Or, lets put it in other words, I wouldn't say that someone should not be executed because he will get his punishment by God later. That's not the point.

I'm against death penalty for the same reasons that Stealth explaned: It leads to NOTHING!! It makes a limited number of people feel better, for a short period of time. They got their "revenge" or whatever. They feel like they could judge about who deserves to live and who lost that "right". That's all about it.
But on the other hand more hatred is created. Death Penalty never worked as deterrence in history, never! Executed people deal as idols much more as still alive, rotting in a prison cell. And if someone is a threat to society or mankind, it doesn't make a difference if that person is dead or caged.

[Stealth]

I agree with Koko in that leaders who do this type of mayhem deserve the death penalty--like terrorists who commit mass murder&serial killers. They know what they are doing.

Define terrorism. Bush ordered the invasion of Iraqi territory and he knew for a fact that thousands of civilians would die. Let us then give the death penalty to Bush, although I'm sure he doesn't qualify as a terrorist for some people. All soldiers join the army knowing that if they go to war, civilians will die. And to say that it's different because they don't mean to kill civilians is utterly stupid. They know that, willingly or unwillingly, they will kill people who have nothing to do with the conflict. Going to war knowing in advance that you just can't avoid killing people means that you are fully aware of the consequences, and soldiers STILL don't care. Isn't that terrorism? After all, they do terrorize those who are caught up in the middle of the conflict. The only difference between so-called terrorists on the one hand and soldiers and politicians on the other hand is that both soldiers and politicians are legally entitled to kill and are officially recognized as having valid reasons to do so. Pinochet, Thatcher, Bush, Galtieri, Hitler, Franco.... weren't they all terrorists?

EDIT: And no, not all serial killers know what they are doing. Have you heard of mental illnesses?

[MetalPlatypus]

By your logic we should execute all world leaders..
Hussein is a terrorist because he intentionally and willingly used chemical weapons many times during his dictatorship which directly resulted in the deaths of several hundred thousand people.

That´s besides the point. If international community, which UN represents USA included, decides that Saddam Hussein must be removed from power, it is entirely different thing than acting on your own, like USA has done.
Also we could not see anyone attacking USA when it was dropping napalm to Vietnam in a pointless war that killed 2,5 MILLION Vietnamese, mostly civilians. It seems USA has a very short memory and must me reminded every 40 years or so that it is not a superior to other countries and it has limits.
Iraq will demonstrate this to USA and the price for that oil is very high.

Military action occurs for a reason, and we know that having our military act at a certain time may prevent many times greater loss of life in the future. No matter what you say, there is a huge difference between using chemical weapons against 200,000 kurds and having a few thousand civilians deaths knowing that if you didn't invade Iraq saddam would have killed another million.

So you suggest that the reason for USA to attack Iraq was to protect the Kurds?

Even if the death penalty does not deter crime, who cares? A murderer deserves to die because he did not respect anothers life. Why should we respect his? The death penalty is a good alternative to life in prison because I refuse to have my tax dollars to go to these mass murders to feed them, etc. Why should i have to pay for someone like that?

Capital punishment is debatable and I think that any nation that accepts it is barbaric. About your tax dollars: your government used 460 000 000 000 (460 Billion) US Dollars to weapons and military purposes in 2006. I guess the price of one Tomahawk missile would be enough to cover those costs of the prisoners.

And most important of all, why should we model ourselves after the European countries? They are the ones who refused to overthrow Hussein, a great deal of them allied themselves with Hitler, they did nothing as Milosevic murdered thousands of Croations and Bosnians.

Whatever is worth, I do not consider USA to be a democratic country anymore.
The attack to Balkans was approved by UN. We must act in a democratic way, not take the justice into our own hands.

The "war against terrorism" is nothing but a camouflage to hide the expansion politics of USA

Do you have any credible evidence to prove that? don't you think its wrong to spread propoganda like that by just going by your instinct and intuition? The war against terrorism is a war......against Terrorism. Remember 9/11? Why shouldn't we invade Afghanistan if the Taliban attacked us like that?

Of course not. Nobody has. But use your logic. WHY is USA in Iraq? Why isn´t nobody doing anything to that illegal invasion?
Taleban didn´t attack USA, it was Al Qaeda. And sorry, but it was a drop in the ocean what USA has done after that. There is in fact credible evidence that CIA knew about the attacks. Condolezza Rice had to testify and under oath she had to admit that CIA knew about a terrorist group that is planning attack by hijacking planes and crashing them into possibly nuclear power plants or buildings two years ago before the actual attacks. Also Al Qaeda or Talebal didn´t invade USA, Al Qaeda attacked USA and killed 4000 people. That does not justify an occupation of any country.

Well there you go!
And when British/American/Russian intelligence point to the existance of WMD's, when Saddam expells UN weapons inspectors, when you know he's used chemical weapons in the past, and when you know that in the 80's he expressed interest in nuclear weapons, what choice did the US have?

This is untrue and you can read it from here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_w ... estruction
Saddam invited the weapons inspector back at 2002. The chief inspector Hans Blix was furious because he felt that his work was heavily influenced by Washington. Consequently, WMD´s were never found after the invasion. If they would have, they would have been presented to the media for sure.

And why should the UN be our moral compass?
Having to get approval from the UN is nothing more than tyranny. The UN has accomplished nothing, and yet it spends 5 billion a year subverting american interests. Most of its charitable work ends up not getting in the hands of the people who need it, too. When its members such as France have some financial ties to Hussein, then they refuse to allow us to act against them when our national interests our concerned...not to mention the Oil for Food scandal, thats a pretty good sign to Americans that the UN is a useless organization.

I tell you why my friend. So there would not be a third one. Whatever corruption there exists, it must be actively weeded out. UN is really all we have and USA is a member and should obey its law and spirit.

First, 10 to 20 years is very unlikely. I'd say its anywhere from 1 to 5 years. Second, where is the credible citation for your claims that the Iraq war is about oil?

So then, what is it about? Getting US soldiers to protect Kurds?

And, also...so whats the UN done about North Korea? What has the UN done about Iran? And what was the UN doing about Iraq and the genocides he was responsible for? The UN did nothing and always will do nothing. Was Iran and North Korea's nuclear weapons ok'd by the UN? I thought so. And yet, the USA is the big enemy, right?

[/quote]

UN is putting heavy sanctions to Iran and North Korea and is actively working on the case..in a democratic way. The rhetoric of the president of Iran and the missile tests of North Korea are actually Americas fault. You get what you order from the menu. Iran doesn´t have nuclear weapons. Hey man, you better get your facts straight, you have so many loopholes in your patriotic writings that it leaks bigtime!!
And yes, USA is a very very dangerous country at the moment.

[browneyedgirl]

@MP, with your obvious anti-USA feelings I hope you do not do business here in USA or you will get a very cold welcome. Or do you just chung those anti-American feelings down in your gut? At least you like MacDonalds.



Drop in the ocean is what Al-Queda did to/in USA? Are you crazy or just cold-hearted? Try telling that to the approximately 3000 people who lost loved ones in 9/11, and I hope you have good dental insurance, baby!

I suggest you stop reading http://www.rense.com because that site is nothing but a lying&hatefilled propaganda machine. That site is the one that started those rumors that USA knew about the attacks on 9/11 beforehand. If you are as smart as you claim to be, MP, be careful what you believe!!!

[neonlightchild]

@MP, with your obvious anti-USA feelings I hope you do not do business here in USA or you will get a very cold welcome. Or do you just chung those anti-American feelings down in your gut? At least you like MacDonalds.



Drop in the ocean is what Al-Queda did to/in USA? Are you crazy or just cold-hearted? Try telling that to the approximately 3000 people who lost loved ones in 9/11, and I hope you have good dental insurance, baby!

I suggest you stop reading http://www.rense.com because that site is nothing but a lying&hatefilled propaganda machine. That site is the one that started those rumors that USA knew about the attacks on 9/11 beforehand. If you are as smart as you claim to be, MP, be careful what you believe!!!

i really like USA (AND MCDONALDS FUCKING RULE!!!), i lived 4 years in Chicago while i was at high school, then i came back to México, and i really had a blast, is an easy country, and i had no problem with anyone.

When it comes to goverment, well, i think there have been many mistakes, maybe huge ones, but at least the involved countries have done the same stuff and as long as patriotic and radical militian ideologies of villians and heroes exists, there won't be any peace in the damn world.

See ya, and have a blasting new year all of you guys.

[browneyedgirl]

Great post, neonlightchild! There are good points&bad points about EVERY nation in this world---as long as people dwell on the bad stuff its going to be mistrust&hostility between nations.
I have never traveled, so I cannot make comparisons, but I just know where I exist&I enjoy it, and I'm happy. And I thank God I do live in America&not somewhere like a third world country.
People need to bloom where they are planted, be happy&stop damn complaining--its still a beautiful world.

[Stealth]

And I thank God I do live in America&not somewhere like a third world country.

THAT'S the reason why many people don't like Americans! I'm really glad you mentioned it yourself! You really don't think it sounds derogatory? "I don't live somewhere like a third world country". That sounds horribly arrogant and, more importantly, ignorant. I've met many Americans (from Rochester, Chicago, Washington D.C., and Boston, to name some examples) who are truly great people, open-minded, nice and friendly. And then there are comments like yours... And I know that you try to show that not everyone from the south is a redneck (btw, I couldn't agree more) but your comments often tend to support the view that southerners are rednecks. The ridiculous patriotism combined with derogatory comments about third world countries makes me think that you really don't know (or don't care to know) about things that happen farther than three blocks from your home. And you know, there are places in third world countries that are more desirable in many ways than some places in first world countries... You should give it a try sometime. I've been in some third world countries and believe me, I don't know what you think Alabama is, but it would certainly qualify as a third world state (it would rank lower than MANY third world countries too).

So, if you are not a redneck (i.e. if you do not have a redneck mentality) prove me wrong. Yes I know, you don't have to prove me anything, blah blah, but my point is that even though you try to challenge the redneck stereotype, it is ironic that you fit that stereotype perfectly.
"Support our troops"; big American flags, the Bible this, the Bible that; you are glad you don't live in the third world....

What can I tell you, I see ignorance, arrogance and "redneckness" all over the place.

Having said this, I repeat that I'm not talking about all Americans or the whole of the U.S.; I did meet some very cool Americans who were very nice (and much friendlier than Torontonians, which is no surprise).

[Stealth]

By your logic we should execute all world leaders..
Hussein is a terrorist because he intentionally and willingly used chemical weapons many times during his dictatorship which directly resulted in the deaths of several hundred thousand people.

You call that logic? I don't get it, are you reasoning at all? My logic says nothing about executing all world leaders... unless you think that all world leaders are like Bush, which is implied in your reply. I honestly don't think that people like Tarja Halonen, Michelle Bachelet, José Luis Zapatero, Evo Morales, and others have ANY resemblance to Bush. Then again, when you say "world", you may be referring to a very limited number of countries, since the world seems to be Europe and the U.S. The thought that all world leaders are indeed like Bush is laughable to say the least. I'm saying that if Saddam got the death penalty, then Bush should get it too. Bush is a terrorist because he intentionally, willingly and FORCEFULLY ordered the occupation of Iraqi territory for no real, justifiable reason (don't give me that story about the existence of weapons of mass destruction, which not even the UN could prove) knowing that his decision would cost the lives of thousands of civilians. He's no less a terrorist than Saddam, and I'm not even going to argue about this because there's no argument to say that he's something else. To say that he was protecting other people is both stupid and paternalistic.

What is your point?
We should execute all soldiers?
Military action occurs for a reason, and we know that having our military act at a certain time may prevent many times greater loss of life in the future. No matter what you say, there is a huge difference between using chemical weapons against 200,000 kurds and having a few thousand civilians deaths knowing that if you didn't invade Iraq saddam would have killed another million.

My point is that so-called terrorists and soldiers are similar in many ways. Think about it, what seems to be a terrorist to you is actually a soldier for someone else, and vice versa. Soldiers, terrorists... They are what, to use an Argentine expression, I would call "the same shit with different smell".

Someone who has murdered and raped dozens of people should not live out there rest of his days in a prison watching TV and listening to music, socializing, and all the other things he can do but his victims cannot.

First of all, you have to evaluate the mental state of the killer/rapist. Some of them can't be held accountable for their actions as they are not in control of their mental faculties. Sure, it's a tragedy that someone might get killed or raped as a result of a person's mental instability, but if it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that that person is not in control of his/her own actions, then prison should be left out of the discussion. A psychiatric hospital is a much better alternative.
Secondly, if you think that life in prison is all about watching TV, listening to music, socializing (wtf?!?) and just generally having a blast, you got another thing coming. I read a book not long ago about the prison system in the U.S. (I'm going to read a second one soon). I recommend it; it's called "Going Up the River: Travels in a Prison Nation" and the author is Joseph Hallinan. You might find it interesting. Believe me, if I ever got convicted, I WISH I could get a death penalty instead of serving time in one of those prisons... Socializing, listening to music... hahha! That's a million light years away from reality. Prisoners don't get basic necessities and btw, you would enjoy the book because it shows how the penal system is based on punishment (which is what you like) rather than rehabilitation. You could also get the other book, "Lockdown America: Police and Prisons in the Age of Crisis" by Christian Parenti.

Even if the death penalty does not deter crime, who cares? A murderer deserves to die because he did not respect anothers life. Why should we respect his?

See my previous comment.

And most important of all, why should we model ourselves after the European countries? They are the ones who refused to overthrow Hussein, a great deal of them allied themselves with Hitler, they did nothing as Milosevic murdered thousands of Croations and Bosnians.

That's right. They were passive. They should be more active like the American governments that supported ALL South and Central American dictatorships (hell, they even replaced someone they didn't like: Allende, for someone they supported: Pinochet) as well as the Talibans in their war against Russia (let's not forget the strong bond that united the Bush family with Osama when it came to oil-related businesses). Say, if humanity is so important to the American government and money and power isn't everything, where were they during the Rwandan conflict between Tutsis and Hutus? Mmmm, no money to be made there. But why go so far in the map to give an example? Say, where was the American government when New Orleans went under water as a result of hurricane Katrina? Well, apparently the black, low-resource, second-class citizens of the region didn't mind waiting for years for some help. But suddenly, Bush, being the caring and sweet individual that he is, got worried about the wellbeing of his fellow Iraqi friends. Awwwww, that humanitarian act really touched me deep in my balls.

The "war against terrorism" is nothing but a camouflage to hide the expansion politics of USA

Do you have any credible evidence to prove that? don't you think its wrong to spread propoganda like that by just going by your instinct and intuition?

The U.S. has always been an expansionist nation-state. They bought Alaska; most of southern U.S. was originally Mexican; the state of Maine was originally Canadian. No instinct and intuition here... Besides, these are merely examples of geographical expansionism, but the expansion politics are seen in economic policies.

USA attacked Iraq without mandate from United Nations, that it is part of

And why should the UN be our moral compass?
Having to get approval from the UN is nothing more than tyranny.

And overriding international laws in order to do whatever the hell you want is... well, damn... isn't that tyranny as well? You may not agree with every law there is, but adhering to certain laws is a sign of behaving in a civilized manner and being open to discussions. Bush behaved like a barbarian who does not have the capacity to talk things over. His moral compass screwed thousands of lives, and why should his morality be applied in Iraq?

[MetalPlatypus]

Drop in the ocean is what Al-Queda did to/in USA? Are you crazy or just cold-hearted? Try telling that to the approximately 3000 people who lost loved ones in 9/11, and I hope you have good dental insurance, baby!

Yes, drop in the ocean. Or is an Iraqi life less valuable than American life? Because it seems to me that it is. You try to tell that to a child that has lost her legs because of the mass bombings of US to Baghdad, where mostly civilians were killed. And it was much more than 3000. See this is what you Americans don´t get, you are not invincible, you thought you are, but then when something like 9/11 happens, you wake up and cry for justice.

[MetalPlatypus]

That´s besides the point. If international community, which UN represents USA included, decides that Saddam Hussein must be removed from power, it is entirely different thing than acting on your own, like USA has done.

The international community which your hateful anti-american speech symbolizes so well? Why should the USA have to ask permission to defend itself from an international community filled with jealousy and hate?

First of all I´m not anti-American, I am anti-American government. I know many wonderful people from USA.
One more time, USA should have let the weapon inspectors (which included several Americans) to do their job. Their conclusion was, before they were forced to leave before Tomahawks started to fly in, that Sadddams nuclear program was abandoned early nineties and that he was no credible threat to the area, but in fact a balancing factor. Once again, if the crimes he commited in his country should be seen by the international community such as that he should have been removed from power, then it would be completely different matter. And so your argument about the reason of the attack (establishing balance and security in the area) are simply plain nonsense. The area was secure, the weapon inspectors were doing their job. And still USA attacked Iraq and there can be only one reason to this and that is the oil.

And you forgot the part where the North Vietnamese tried to take away the freedom of the South Vietnamese, and we came in there and spent all that money to try to give them a chance for freedom?

Hahaha, so that´s the reason for the Vietnam war. I have to give you a credit, you do seem to believe that USA is somekind of freedom fighter, but the sad fact is that war is business and money and very rarely about anything else.
As your great President JFK said, "it´s their war, in the final analysis they are the ones who have to win it or lose it, not us". He started pulling troops out from Vietnam and bang, he was killed. By another "lone nut". Then LB Johnson stepped in and escalated the war quickly. Very few remember that USA actually lost that war. I am so touched about the willingness of USA for humanitarian reasons to send its troops to a different places in the world where "democracy is threatened".

I'll pay for the missile so we can protect this country. I won't pay even a dime for a serial rapist/killer.

So you pay..460 billion dollars each years and increasing.

Whatever is worth, I do not consider USA to be a democratic country anymore.
The attack to Balkans was approved by UN. We must act in a democratic way, not take the justice into our own hands.

And by democratic, you mean the UN which clearly hates the United States, should tell us what to do. We have our own democracy, where we, Americans, decide whats best for us. Everyone knows the UN is very anti-American, wake up. If we don't protect our own interests, the UN certainly won't either!

United Nations has 192 member countries. They all hate USA? I believe the question here is if the attack to Iraq was illegal according to international laws.
And yes it was, because of the reasons I have many times explained to you.
But I repeat it here: The weapon inspectors among them several Americans were investigating Iraqi weapon program. According to Hans Blix, they co operated well and gave them access where ever they wanted. There were no conflicts on that area before that, only the accusations of USA and England, that Saddam might have nuclear weapons. This investigation could not be let to be finished because a greater plan was in the works. Bush had already decided to attack Iraq. In the next 10-15 years, the oil resources of this planet has been pretty much used. THAT is the reason to attack the third biggest oil producing country, Iraq. The first attack to Iraq, with the papa Bush, had a mandate from UN.

There is in fact credible evidence that CIA knew about the attacks. Condolezza Rice had to testify and under oath she had to admit that CIA knew about a terrorist group that is planning attack by hijacking planes and crashing them into possibly nuclear power plants or buildings two years ago before the actual attacks.

The Intelligence of America hears about tens or hundreds of thousands of attacks every year. The hard part is figuring out which one's are the serious, legitimate threats.

And they are all investigated. Don´t you consider that kind of threat serious?
Especially since they had data about all these arabs studying in flight schools.
No, they let it happen and they had ample time to plan their attack to Iraq before the attack. 3000 lives means nothing to governments when "bigger" things are concerned.

Also Al Qaeda or Talebal didn´t invade USA, Al Qaeda attacked USA and killed 4000 people. That does not justify an occupation of any country.

Its not a permanent occupation.
Once Iraq is stable, the United States will leave.
Do you think the American people want our troops dying in Iraq?

American people don´t want "your troops" to die in Iraq, but your government won´t give a rats ass. Stable democratic Iraq? How naive can you be? Do you really think that a country that has been Muslim for thousands of years can be converted to democracy in a few years? USA is staying in Iraq for one reason only, the oil and the "rebuilding of the infrastructure (by US companies, some owned by members of your government)". When they have accomplished this "mission" they leave the whole country, which will result a civil war (that´s actually already now happening).

This is untrue and you can read it from here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_w ... estruction
Saddam invited the weapons inspector back at 2002. The chief inspector Hans Blix was furious because he felt that his work was heavily influenced by Washington. Consequently, WMD´s were never found after the invasion. If they would have, they would have been presented to the media for sure.

I didn't know the inspectors were invited back. But nonetheless international intelligence pointed in the same direction, and Saddam had a history of chemical weapons usage, etc.

It did yes and that´s why the weapon inspectors were sent there.

You've got to be joking if you think the UN is capable of stopping an international conflict of any sort

.

No I´m not joking. 192 countries must be able to do that together.

UN is putting heavy sanctions to Iran and North Korea and is actively working on the case..in a democratic way. moment.

The UN could have stopped North Korea before they built their bomb. They could have stopped them before they conducted their first nuclear test, they could have stopped them before they made their second test. They did NOTHING! Sanctions or no sanctions, big deal to North Korea,they're activily developing their nuclear missiles as we speak.

As much as I sense the American arrogance here, I´m telling you that none of these leaders are crackpots. They know what they are doing and they know what they achieve with their missile tests and denying holocausts rhetorics.
It is just to show the west that there are other countries out there that have means to attack as well. I hope they will finish their missile program, although I doubt it because UN will stop it (and this might mean first sanctions and then military actions). Same with Iran. These countries are not blind to US expansion politics and that´s the reason they are acting the way they do.

Iran doesn´t have nuclear weapons.

But everyone knows they're working on it and the UN can't do anything about it. When Iran announces that they want to annihilate Israel and they are working on their nuclear weapons, I didn't hear anyone in this forum complain. Europe and the UN just want to focus on America.

So you see the whole Europe and 192 countries of UN being against USA:)?
By the way, did you know that the Iranian nuclear program was started in the fifties with the help of USA?:) Nevertheless, sanctions have been issued before Christmas and it will proceed in a democratic, civilized way. Unless USA or Israel decides to invade the country as a "defense". Even if Iran would have in mind to make atomic weapons, they are still 10 years from achieving that. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 01453.html
It is not so easy to make them.

You get what you order from the menu.

Not true.
The other day at an Indian restaurant I ordered the chicken Tikka Masala but they gave me a Makhan Wala Chicken instead.

I´d be careful. Next time it could be a member of Al Qaeda with a smallpox virus.

[Carcass]

For once I agree with the Vatican.

A capital punishment is always tragic news, a reason for sadness, even if it deals with a person who was guilty of grave crimes...

The killing of the guilty party is not the way to reconstruct justice and reconcile society. On the contrary, there is a risk that it will feed a spirit of vendetta and sow new violence.

In these dark times for the Iraqi people, one can only hope that all responsible parties truly make every effort so that glimmers of reconciliation and peace can be found in such a dramatic situation.

What happened to that Christian advice of loving your enemy? Talking about hypocricy...

[Morgana]

I completely disagree with Morgana.
It would be nice to assume he gets what he deserves with god, but no one has any evidence of god's existance. So it is wrong to assume that he will simply get his just punishment with god when we do not know there exists a god.

OK, let's stop to discuss about if the God exists or not, this discussion has no sense. Everybody will keep his/her mind.

A person who has committed genocide does not deserve to live. And the execution will be a good lesson to many others and will save innocent lives.

You know, in Russia many people who have to be isolated from the world until the end of their days - they say that it would be better if they will be killed fast. When man stays alone one-by-one with their own thoughts and sins he suffer more that if he would be killed. So I think that isolation is more useful punishment than death. In isolation man's psychic will punish him harder.

[stratohawk]

That's right. They were passive. They should be more active like the American governments that supported ALL South and Central American dictatorships (hell, they even replaced someone they didn't like: Allende, for someone they supported: Pinochet) as well as the Talibans in their war against Russia (let's not forget the strong bond that united the Bush family with Osama when it came to oil-related businesses). Say, if humanity is so important to the American government and money and power isn't everything, where were they during the Rwandan conflict between Tutsis and Hutus? Mmmm, no money to be made there. But why go so far in the map to give an example? Say, where was the American government when New Orleans went under water as a result of hurricane Katrina? Well, apparently the black, low-resource, second-class citizens of the region didn't mind waiting for years for some help. But suddenly, Bush, being the caring and sweet individual that he is, got worried about the wellbeing of his fellow Iraqi friends. Awwwww, that humanitarian act really touched me deep in my balls.

Thank you for that part, Stealth. That is really one of the most important points that makes me being against US politics. And not only me, I guess almost anyone who has something against those policics.

And another question that came to my mind after reading Carcass' last post: The USA claim to be a nation of Christianity. Then why is your administration acting completely contradictory to what Jesus and the Bible says? And, back to the topic: Do you know the story, where a woman that betrayed her husband should be stoned to death? Do you know what Jesus says to those men that want to execute her?
Yes. I think it's still a great example and answer to all questions about death penalty. Some of you might accuse me of being simplifying this matter. But what the heck, there's not a single person, no government, no institution in this world, that has the right to take away other's lifes because of finding them guilty.

[browneyedgirl]

You know with all the obvious Anti-USA bashing here&me being called a redneck it does not bother me at all(this is just an obscure internet forum afterall). Because in the end, the very end, we will see what is right&wrong. Does anyone REALLY know what that is? And what is arrogant&hypocritical are anti-USAers taking cheap shots at USA&its policies, then cannot take it when your own country's shortcomings are pointed out.

But, like I said, this year will repeat itself, another year of USA bashing from the know-all"intellectuals" here. If its OK to call someone a redneck, its OK to call someone a know-all.
But, MP, I think knows all the forum bullying techniques-he has had a few years of practice&guilt by association, so I may call in reinforcements.

[browneyedgirl]

Drop in the ocean is what Al-Queda did to/in USA? Are you crazy or just cold-hearted? Try telling that to the approximately 3000 people who lost loved ones in 9/11, and I hope you have good dental insurance, baby!

Yes, drop in the ocean. Or is an Iraqi life less valuable than American life? Because it seems to me that it is. You try to tell that to a child that has lost her legs because of the mass bombings of US to Baghdad, where mostly civilians were killed. And it was much more than 3000. See this is what you Americans don´t get, you are not invincible, you thought you are, but then when something like 9/11 happens, you wake up and cry for justice.

With your money&influence why don't you go to Iraq and help those people you obviously love so much. Put your money where your mouth is if you can tear yourself away from your oh-so cozy life.

[MetalPlatypus]

Drop in the ocean is what Al-Queda did to/in USA? Are you crazy or just cold-hearted? Try telling that to the approximately 3000 people who lost loved ones in 9/11, and I hope you have good dental insurance, baby!

Yes, drop in the ocean. Or is an Iraqi life less valuable than American life? Because it seems to me that it is. You try to tell that to a child that has lost her legs because of the mass bombings of US to Baghdad, where mostly civilians were killed. And it was much more than 3000. See this is what you Americans don´t get, you are not invincible, you thought you are, but then when something like 9/11 happens, you wake up and cry for justice.

With your money&influence why don't you go to Iraq and help those people you obviously love so much. Put your money where your mouth is if you can tear yourself away from your oh-so cozy life.

I haven´t a faintest clue what you are talking about. Except that you obviously think I am someone else. I´m not rich, but a student. And you did not answer if Iraqi life is equal to American life?

[MetalPlatypus]

You know with all the obvious Anti-USA bashing here&me being called a redneck it does not bother me at all(this is just an obscure internet forum afterall). Because in the end, the very end, we will see what is right&wrong. Does anyone REALLY know what that is? And what is arrogant&hypocritical are anti-USAers taking cheap shots at USA&its policies, then cannot take it when your own country's shortcomings are pointed out.

But, like I said, this year will repeat itself, another year of USA bashing from the know-all"intellectuals" here. If its OK to call someone a redneck, its OK to call someone a know-all.
But, MP, I think knows all the forum bullying techniques-he has had a few years of practice&guilt by association, so I may call in reinforcements.

We do know some things that are clearly right and clearly wrong. You yourself referred "3rd world countries" less than USA. I call that extremely arrogant.
Universal Human Rights have been determined in the UN and has been signed by the member countries. Acting against those rights is wrong. These are not "cheap shots" against US politics we are discussing about here. These are serious violations of international laws and you should understand that.

[NeonVomit]

And you forgot the part where the North Vietnamese tried to take away the freedom of the South Vietnamese, and we came in there and spent all that money to try to give them a chance for freedom?

There is no defending the Vietnam war. It was entirely pointless, and nothing was gained from it except some really great films. I think that's the general consensus now.

If the US had left Vietnam alone it would've worked out just fine. The USSR collapsed like the false bogeyman it was, and only N Korea is left as any sort of reminder of it. Vietnam is still recovering from that war to this day, but they're doing alright as a country considering the past.

So you suggest that the reason for USA to attack Iraq was to protect the Kurds?

No, but I am saying any iraqi civilian deaths (which are actually caused by the terrorists, not by USA in most cases since they hide among civilians and put bombs in public places) are negligable in comparison to the deaths Saddam would have otherwise been responsible for. The other civilian deaths I am referring to are the American civilian deaths that would be a result of his terrorism-funding activities which you yourself admitted were going on.

Iraq was a shambles after the war with Iran and then the first Gulf War. Their nuclear ambitions were annihilated by Israel, their other capabilities severely damaged. Inspectors found nothing. After the war, still nothing has been found (and you can bet that would be the first thing they'd announce, to justify themselves). This means that all 'evidence' was wrong, or fabricated to create a flimsy pretext to go to war.

I'll pay for the missile so we can protect this country. I won't pay even a dime for a serial rapist/killer.

If it's an issue of money, then you should be against the death penalty. It costs the taxpayer more to execute a prisoner than to keep him alive for the rest of his natural life, due to appeals and legal costs. Look it up.

Whatever is worth, I do not consider USA to be a democratic country anymore.
The attack to Balkans was approved by UN. We must act in a democratic way, not take the justice into our own hands.

What are you talking about? Of course the USA is a democratic nation. That makes no sense. Look at the recent midterm elections, the American people were tired of the inefficient troublemaking scandal-ridden government and therefore effectively slapped the Republicans in the face and gave control of both houses of Congress to the Democrats (wow great improvement there, but still...) Clear sign of democracy, if you ask me.

The NATO war against Milosevic was UN approved, not like it achieved much though. I still think UN approval is important, becaue it means that the international community as a whole has decided to act, not a nation unilaterally.

If we don't protect our own interests, the UN certainly won't either!

Invading Iraq has done nothing for US interests except harm them.

Of course not. Nobody has. But use your logic. WHY is USA in Iraq? Why isn´t nobody doing anything to that illegal invasion?

Taleban didn´t attack USA, it was Al Qaeda.

And Taliban harbored Al Qaeda.

And Iraq had nothing to do with either. Osama Bin Laden was a sworn enemy of Saddam, he hated him almost as much as the west and Saudi leaders.

Also Al Qaeda or Taleban didn´t invade USA, Al Qaeda attacked USA and killed 4000 people. That does not justify an occupation of any country.

It demanded action though. Something had to be done. In the face of a direct act of war like that, it demanded a direct response and any government that does not respond to something like that does not deserve power. That's why I have no qualms about the Afghanistan situation, it needed to be done. Quite what Iraq had to do with the 9/11 attacks I will never be sure.

This is untrue and you can read it from here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_w ... estruction
Saddam invited the weapons inspector back at 2002. The chief inspector Hans Blix was furious because he felt that his work was heavily influenced by Washington. Consequently, WMD´s were never found after the invasion. If they would have, they would have been presented to the media for sure.

It makes sense, but dude please don't cite Wikipedia as any sort of reliable source. I could log in there now and edit the article to say that Hans Blix is a grease monkey from Acton and it would be a while before anyone noticed and then was bothered to alter it back.

I didn't know the inspectors were invited back. But nonetheless international intelligence pointed in the same direction, and Saddam had a history of chemical weapons usage, etc.

That still wasn't enough of a reason to justify the war and invasion. That some evidence was fabricated and ALL of it was proved to be wrong, should be a clear enough sign that this war was effectively over nothing.

I tell you why my friend. So there would not be a third one. Whatever corruption there exists, it must be actively weeded out. UN is really all we have and USA is a member and should obey its law and spirit.

You've got to be joking if you think the UN is capable of stopping an international conflict of any sort.

Entirely untrue. The UN isn't very effective, but its peacekeeping and humanitarian work cannot be overlooked. The world needs something like the UN. It's far from perfect, but I agree with SH, it's all we have.

So then, what is it about? Getting US soldiers to protect Kurds?

Establishing security in the region while we let the Iraq army/militia take over our job of protecting/maintaining stability in Iraq.

Let's see how long Turkey will be happy with the Kurds' new found freedom. Kurds are terrorists too, you know (since we're using vast generalisations anyway) Just they blow up cafes and bars in Ankara instead of Baghdad.

Those are noble goals, but are they feasible? It's easy to say all that.

The UN could have stopped North Korea before they built their bomb. They could have stopped them before they conducted their first nuclear test, they could have stopped them before they made their second test. They did NOTHING! Sanctions or no sanctions, big deal to North Korea,they're activily developing their nuclear missiles as we speak.

So why did America see it fit to invade Iraq instead of N. Korea? As you said yourself, if the UN does nothing to protect US interests, then why shouldn't the US act unilaterally? N Korea is far more dangerous to the world and the US than Iraq ever was.

However, N Korea is seen as being in China's sphere of influence. That would piss China off, and that's the last thing the US needs or wants at this point in time.

Iran doesn´t have nuclear weapons.

But everyone knows they're working on it and the UN can't do anything about it. When Iran announces that they want to annihilate Israel and they are working on their nuclear weapons, I didn't hear anyone in this forum complain. Europe and the UN just want to focus on America.

Both of these statements are flawed. No one knows for sure. Do you even understand what Uranium enrichment (what this whole thing is over) actually is? It's a process many countries persue, and it's usually used to make nuclear reactors more efficient. It _COULD_ also be used to produces weapons-grade Plutonium.

Personally, I think Iran might be developing nuclear weapons. They don't see why they shouldn't, when India and Pakistan both announced their own nucelar programs no one batted an eyelid or made any protests.

Then again, this might also be an elaborate bluff. I wouldn't put it past them.

[Stealth]

So I think that isolation is more useful punishment than death. In isolation man's psychic will punish him harder.

Again, it's very sad that many people keep trying to develop the best possible forms of punishment instead of thinking about rehabilitation. There's no willingness to examine a man's mental condition and his social, cultural and economic backgrounds, which in many cases lead a man to the point of despair. Most of these people are already isolated from society and are given no opportunities and treated like scum. Punish them and the cycle will repeat itself forever. A man who gets no opportunities in life has nothing to lose; you may think that punishing them will serve as an example, but people who have nothing to lose are as bad in their social environment as they are in a prison (well, in many respects, prisons are much worse). They are automatically labeled as criminals by most of society, and this stigmatization leads these people to keep committing crimes. After all, it doesn't matter what they (the criminals) think about themselves; if other people think they are criminals, then they might as well behave like criminals, since not behaving like criminals will not get rid of the stigma they carry.
Thinking about the west way to punish someone is simplistic and quite regressive in terms of human evolution. Hell, why not regress back to the times of the Inquisition and start using guillotines, dismembering arms and legs, drilling a person's head, etc.? Concentrating on punishment ignores the social and economic causes of crime. Punishing people for their crimes does not deal in any way whatsoever with the deeper problems found in society. The U.S. penal system punishes its inmates very harshly; nonetheless, violent crime in the U.S. has been on the rise for quite some time now. But there's no focus on economic policies and social policies of inclusion. Let's just punish those who do not fit in the social scheme.

And what is arrogant&hypocritical are anti-USAers taking cheap shots at USA&its policies,

As mentioned by MetalPlatypus, these are not cheap shots. You are truly blind if you do not see this.

then cannot take it when your own country's shortcomings are pointed out. Smile

Try me. I criticize the American government here because that's what we are talking about. Talk about my country's government shortcomings and I will be the first one to criticize its inner workings. Unlike you, I don't have a pin with my country's flag stuck to my chest guiding my every thought and making sure I never speak ill of "my" government.

If its OK to call someone a redneck, its OK to call someone a know-all.

Why thank you, you are far too kind.

[Morgana]

Stealth, I don't talk about how to create the most cruel way of punishment. I talk about how to creat the way of punishmant that will make people to make conclusions, to make them understand what they done and where they were guilty. What conclusion can they do when they are died? Repentance is possible in the case of life inprisontment but impossible in case of death penalty. Life inprisontment gives to man a posibility to repent, death penalty doesn't.

[browneyedgirl]

Drop in the ocean is what Al-Queda did to/in USA? Are you crazy or just cold-hearted? Try telling that to the approximately 3000 people who lost loved ones in 9/11, and I hope you have good dental insurance, baby!

Yes, drop in the ocean. Or is an Iraqi life less valuable than American life? Because it seems to me that it is. You try to tell that to a child that has lost her legs because of the mass bombings of US to Baghdad, where mostly civilians were killed. And it was much more than 3000. See this is what you Americans don´t get, you are not invincible, you thought you are, but then when something like 9/11 happens, you wake up and cry for justice.

With your money&influence why don't you go to Iraq and help those people you obviously love so much. Put your money where your mouth is if you can tear yourself away from your oh-so cozy life.

I haven´t a faintest clue what you are talking about. Except that you obviously think I am someone else. I´m not rich, but a student. And you did not answer if Iraqi life is equal to American life?

Really? What University do you attend? What do you study? How to plant Waterlilys?
So, You know people in the USA? Yeah, those MILFs were lined up, I'm sure! And, "nice" people you label I'm sure are the People who asskiss&sheepishly agree with all you say. When someone does not agree on with you on issues they are immediately labeled as "evil" or "hatefilled". Cute. Of course you just try to blame their attitude, but we know that is a cover-up. Very cute.
People, ALL people, have a right to their opinion, not just the ones YOU have.
KOKO is right--you blatantly twisted my words. I said I was glad I was born in USA&not in a third world country----odds are YOU are glad you were born in a civilized country, too! And arrogance defined is someone who thinks that only their opinion matters, only their opinion is right, someone who knows all the answers---a mini-philosopher. MP, If you know all the answers maybe you can tell me the cure for anorexia, how to keep bleached blonde hair looking natural, I have a pain in my left upper arm that won't go away--whats that, and finally, how does a person grow Waterlilys?
And, like koko said, you are so anti-USA it would make a Russian dictator sick yet, you quote USA sources, and criticize NASA UNLESS they agree with you.

koko is also right when he says I am a liberal. But, let me tell you something, Mr. MuchoPhilosopher-- the USA is full of folks who don't like Bush, yet would fight some hatemonger like you tooth&nail to defend this country and its freedoms. But, I don't guess you'd understand that because you are so blinded by your own know-all arrogance.
I await your answer about the blonde question. I really think you'd know that answer.

[Stealth]

@ Kokordilos: As I said before, and I'm sure many users here agree, I'm not anti-USA, I'm anti-USA government. I know that lots of Americans are also against the government. Just keep the distinction in mind; I'm not talking about every single American citizen but about those who are in power and who are in charge of social, political and economic policies as well as decision-making.

@ BEG: Your words: I said I was glad I was born in USA&not in a third world country----odds are YOU are glad you were born in a civilized country, too!
This comment implies that third world countries are uncivilized. Which brings us back to the issue of arrogance and ignorance once again. Maybe you don't know how to convey your message clearly... Maybe I'm not getting it right, but I see an arrogant and ignorant mentality here. I would prefer not having to be offensive, but given the comment above, let me tell you that I was born and raised in a third world country and in spite of all the problems in my native city (and there are MANY problems) I wouldn't dream of comparing it to a place like Alabama. It's not only a matter of money and poverty, it's also about something called cultural capital. In my eyes, a place like Alabama would rank extremely low in terms of cultural capital (which includes education among other things). Still, there's no such thing as more or less civilized places. Every place is functionally civilized according to its history, culture, society, etc. Or maybe you would prefer ranking societies according to a very old anthropological model that separated groups of people into three categories from lowest to highest: First: Lower, middle and upper savagery; second: Lower, middle and upper barbarism; and third: Civilization (represented by European societies, of course). Needless to say, this ranking is obsolete and absurd in modern times. Still, if you think the actions of the Bush administration are what you call civilized, maybe you should go abroad for a while.

arrogance defined is someone who thinks that only their opinion matters, only their opinion is right, someone who knows all the answers---a mini-philosopher.

Wrong. Philosophers don't even come close to claiming that they have all the answers. In fact, the great majority of philosophers will tell you that they simply cannot know lots of things with absolute certainty. They can have ideological inclinations and opinions based on logic and experience, but almost none will tell you that they know the truth about everything, even if they are sure of some things. Philosophy is a lot more complicated than that. Yeah, maybe I'm going on a tangent here, but I just felt like mentioning that "someone who knows all the answers" and "mini-philosopher" are not equivalent terms. What you are referring to is sophism, not philosophy.

koko is also right when he says I am a liberal.

No you are not. I mean, be whatever you want and consider yourself whatever you want, but in a standard conception of liberalism as defined by certain factors (e.g. social, political, economic ideology) you are not liberal.
And there is no real liberal party in the U.S. (Democrats? Not bloody likely!).

[miditek]

If the US had left Vietnam alone it would've worked out just fine.

Haven't you forgotten the First Indochina War, which was a major humiliation for the French? Nearly twice as many French troops (as opposed to US soldiers) were KIA. Moreover, American forces and helicopters were used there to get the French out.

That was the start of US involvement in Vietnam, so I'm assuming that there was already a problem with the *cough- Viet Minh cough* there when US forces arrived.

Ho Chi Minh was quoted as saying after Diem Bien Phu;

"this is only victory of the first step: we have yet to fight the Americans."

The USSR collapsed like the false bogeyman it was, and only N Korea is left as any sort of reminder of it.

I think that perhaps that might be an overly benign assessment of the Soviet-era Kremlin, as its succession of dictatorships killed tens of millions, and enslaved many millions more for nearly seven decades.

[NeonVomit]

You coulda just given me a link.

They're your taxes, not mine. You should know where your cash goes

Lets see, its failed at peacekeeping, and its humanitarian work is ridden with scandals.

The humanitarian work is ridden with more than a few scandals, but it gets something done and UNICEF is one of the charities I'd rather give to than others.

As for peacekeeping, I've personally worked with UN peacekeepers in Cyprus, and they've done an effective job in Bosnia and Kosovo. In quite a few African nations as well. The UN's achievements are never really recognised but the bad stuff is jumped on, because it's seen as anti-USA by some...

Look, not everyone hates the USA. In fact I think very few people do. You're missing the point, most people just intensely dislike the Bush administration. Can you really blame them?

Anyone who does hate the USA as a country, as a people, is a retard.

[miditek]

Hopefully not, as Saddam, his half brother, and another henchman are now dead, as of this writing at 11:16PM EST (GMT -5), although there have been reports of celebratory gunfire in Baghdad.

With all the gunfire and explosions in Baghdad of a decidedly NOT celebratory nature, how can anyone tell the difference and then make a report of that? Is there so such thing as 'happy sounding gunfire' so as to tell it apart from the 'angry gunfire'?

Of course a military victory can be achieved- via disarmament of the militias, and by any means necessary. If the Iraqi army, as well as the Republican Guard can be vanquished within 100 hours (Gulf War I) and in a few days (Gulf War II), then these militias can also be disarmed, if the allied forces are actually permitted to do so. al-Sadr should also be tried and hanged for his recent atrocities as well.

*coughVietnamcough*

You may want to see my post about the Viet Minh that I just entered.

Gulf Wars I & II were conventional wars. This is not a matter of anyone being 'allowed' to do anything.

I disagree, the Shiites in the Iraqi government are refusing to allow the Shiite militias, including that of Muqtada al-Sadr to be either disbanded, or if they prefer, destroyed. Until these militias are stopped, then chaos will continue.

This is a guerrilla insurgency.

Really?

Totally, totally different from conventional warfare, as anyone with knowledge of military history and techniques will tell you.

Yes, I would say that it is different, just ask the nearly 12,000 French troops that surrendered to General Giap's irregular forces at Dien Bien Phu.

This same General Giap also said that his most important battlefield was in the US media, and that his combined VC and NVA forces simply did not have the resources or firepower to dislodge and expel the US forces from his country.

Where was the major US defeat actually at in Vietnam?
Tet? Khe Sanh? Please tell me where we can find photos of columns of captured US forces being marched down the road by the NVA or VC?

I recieved some training in guerilla warfare during both the ACT (Advanced Combat Training) course and Sargeant school I went through in the army, and I have to say it is the direct opposite from the conventional training with my unit I recieved. One of our more insane instructors ordered us to forget everything we learned about functioning as a unit during his sessions... perhaps this is an extreme viewpoint, but it should give you an idea.

One of the most highly decorated American officers of the Vietnam war was one Lt. Col. James "Bo" Gritz, of the 5th Spec Forces (The Green Berets). His units wrought havoc on, and were feared greatly by, the enemy.

In fact, his "calling card" were totem poles filled with the severed heads of dead VC irregulars, up and down the Ho Chi Minh trail. I think that the character of Col. Kurtz (Brando's character) in Apocalypse Now was based at least in part on Col. Gritz's exploits.

So it's safe to assume that neither the VC of Vietnam nor the Shiite and Sunni death squads of today are some sort of invincible or mythological creatures.

The Japanese were supposedly invincible at Bushido(their brand of guerrilla and jungle warfare), however, the US Army put an end to that myth. Moreover, the Australians made a good showing for themselves, in addition to the Royal Gurkha's.

[browneyedgirl]

@Stealth, I don't think Chili ranks as a third world country. And, you don't know a thing about Alabama. You've never lived here. In fact, several of our Universities rank very highly in the nation. Actually, I don't give a shit what you think, to be blunt.
But, I find your semi-personal attacks very charming---you must continue because it shows just how sophisicated you are! Thank you!
And, that post was not directed to you, so why did you reply in the first place And why all the rambling&nitpicking I guess you just enjoy writing. Good.

[Stealth]

@ BEG: Yes, I enjoy writing.

Well, you've never even been in a third world country, so you don't know a thing about them. Same thing that applies to me, applies to you too.
And I wasn't talking about universities, which are exceptions state-wide (not to mention the fact that although I heard many good things about many American universities, I don't recall hearing anyone talking about Alabaman universities; but that's just because I'm misinformed, not because they might be of dubious quality ).
And I'm not from Chile. Oh, and it's spelled Chile, not chili, which is a kind of pepper. That's what I was talking about when I mentioned education and cultural capital. Try spelling other countries' names, you might get them right if you care to know that there are in fact several countries in this planet. And yes, Chile is a third world country (it's doing better than ever before, but still a third world country).
You are right, unfortunately your post wasn't directed at me. That's the sad thing about it, because what you said about the third world wasn't an empty comment meant to make me feel bad; it's really what you think about it, which is much worse.

About sophistication... Well, I didn't get to the level where I can clearly recognize that third world countries are uncivilized and that being born in the U.S. is much better, but I'm trying hard to become that sophisticated. Sorry, I'm doing my best!!!

[NeonVomit]

Gulf Wars I & II were conventional wars. This is not a matter of anyone being 'allowed' to do anything.

I disagree, the Shiites in the Iraqi government are refusing to allow the Shiite militias, including that of Muqtada al-Sadr to be either disbanded, or if they prefer, destroyed. Until these militias are stopped, then chaos will continue.

That won't make a difference. The biggest threat comes from small groups working independantly, made up of local people who melt back into the regular social fabric after any incident.

This is a guerrilla insurgency.

Really?

Yes. Virtually a textbook definition.

Totally, totally different from conventional warfare, as anyone with knowledge of military history and techniques will tell you.

Yes, I would say that it is different, just ask the nearly 12,000 French troops that surrendered to General Giap's irregular forces at Dien Bien Phu.

This same General Giap also said that his most important battlefield was in the US media, and that his combined VC and NVA forces simply did not have the resources or firepower to dislodge and expel the US forces from his country.

Where was the major US defeat actually at in Vietnam?
Tet? Khe Sanh? Please tell me where we can find photos of columns of captured US forces being marched down the road by the NVA or VC?

Thanks for making my point clearer for me. This is an irregular war, and cannot be compared to a conventional war in any sense, including casualties, prisoners or territory. This is a war against the American will, exactly like the Vietnam war was. A total faliure. And it's weakening, with the rising bloodshed, mounting American casualties and increasingly unclear reasons for being there. Comparing it to the destruction of Saddam's armies in GW I&II and using those as a basis for possible success is utterly pointless. How many more deaths is the American public ready to accept for a rocky desert inhabited by people who want to kill each other anyway? How long before people simply don't want any more to die?

One of the most highly decorated American officers of the Vietnam war was one Lt. Col. James "Bo" Gritz, of the 5th Spec Forces (The Green Berets). His units wrought havoc on, and were feared greatly by, the enemy.

In fact, his "calling card" were totem poles filled with the severed heads of dead VC irregulars, up and down the Ho Chi Minh trail. I think that the character of Col. Kurtz (Brando's character) in Apocalypse Now was based at least in part on Col. Gritz's exploits.

So it's safe to assume that neither the VC of Vietnam nor the Shiite and Sunni death squads of today are some sort of invincible or mythological creatures.

I never said anything of the sort. Just that as a general rule, foreign armies fighting native insurgents do not usually come off better. It's exceedingly difficult to fight an enemy who blends in with the population, who doesn't wear uniform, who has grown up and lived their whole lives in the very battleground of city blocks, streets and alleys in which they fight. Whereas the 'foreign invaders' are dressed in uniform, follow familiar patterns, and their whereabouts and location are common knowledge, as well as not understanding the local language, customs, cultures or intricacies of everyday life.

Iraqi regular army units would probably be far more successful at fighting Iraqi insurgents, because the home-court advantage would be level.

I see no signs of things improving in Iraq, at all. It simply goes from bad to worse every day. I've stopped even registering deaths in Baghdad from bomb attacks that I read or hear about on the news. The only thing that could save Iraq now is for it to build its own military and police force that is capable of dealing with insurgants, and for the US and other forces to get out of there and leave them to it.

Do you want to know how the USA can guarantee victory otherwise?

Round up every single person who is even suspected of involvement in insurgent groups, and execute them without trial. In public. Then bury their bodies in a mass graves with pig carcasses using heavy digging machinery, the ultimate desecration for a Muslim. Anyone who tries to intervene will also be shot and buried along with them. Anyone who is questioned for information and does not give it immediately will be subjected to extreme brutal torture until they give in. Their families and friends will be threatened and possibly sacrificed for information.
Do this repeatedly, going from town to town. Instil utter, sheer, mind-numbing terror, and no one will arise. No one will give their life for a lost cause. Make theirs a lost cause. Petrify them into inaction. Become their worst nightmare. Become more brutal, vicious, horrifyingly sickeningly terrifying than they are. Whatever they do, do back to them twice as hard, twice as twisted, twice as extreme. Show these bloody single-minded people what bloody-singlemindedness really is. Nothing but pure ruthlessness and disregard for human life in any way, with the objective as the single focus of all and any efforts.

The Nazis conquered most of Europe with similar methods, so for the USA to subdue Iraq with similar means would be simple.

Of course, this will not happen, and I am glad for that. That would be worse than lowering to their levels and I know that the western world has moved on from such medieval tactics. In fact, the day the USA does anything like that I will have totally given up hope for mandkind.