Saddam! Super Buffet Ii
DarkATi
Revelation 22:17 Join Date: 2003-06-20 Member: 17532Members, Reinforced - Shadow
Revelation 22:17 Join Date: 2003-06-20 Member: 17532Members, Reinforced - Shadow
Ah Saddam: <a href='http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4079248.stm' target='_blank'>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4079248.stm</a>
Basically, it says that saddam may not be given a fair trial and isn't being given his basic human rights. What do you think?
Personally, I believe there is a large enough case against him already. There is no need to deny him his rights. We're only lowering ourselves to his level if we don't give him a fair and speedy trial and play by the book.
We keep saying, "Oh those US Soldiers abusing the Iraqis - that must be the minority." But is it, really? Abuse in Iraq, Qu'aran Desecration, and now Saddam's trial...
See a pattern?
~ DarkATi
Basically, it says that saddam may not be given a fair trial and isn't being given his basic human rights. What do you think?
Personally, I believe there is a large enough case against him already. There is no need to deny him his rights. We're only lowering ourselves to his level if we don't give him a fair and speedy trial and play by the book.
We keep saying, "Oh those US Soldiers abusing the Iraqis - that must be the minority." But is it, really? Abuse in Iraq, Qu'aran Desecration, and now Saddam's trial...
See a pattern?
~ DarkATi
Comments
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
No.
I see a series of isolated, unrelated incidents that opponents of the Iraq War could easily, but incorrectly, string together.
As for Saddam, his trial is a bigger joke then the Jackson fiasco, let the Kurds deal with that piece of human filth and save us all the trouble, this man is not worth it.
Isolated incidents. Such a nice phrase isn't it? Actually it does say nothing but that such incidents are not related and thus not organized. It does say nothing about the amount of incidents.
In Germany, we had our own little "torture scandal" if you want to call it like that.
Basically, it was about some recruits that officially complained about being mistreated during training and started a landslide of similar reports.
Nothing too special, things like fake abductions and some hours in a dark cell etc. One case reports about treatment with an electro shocker.
Those incidents were discussed with great public interest, as a the German Bundeswehr is a draft army and the question is, how much does a drafted recruit have to endure during his service.
Of course, since we curretly are angaged in combat operations, soldiers should be prepared for such scenarios. However, it was never official policy and not included in official training. It was decided by the training staff of several training facilities independently.
To cut the stroy short, these cases were declared isolated incidents and grass grew quickly.
Some internal research on that matter, however, was leaked and showed that such incidents, while not related to each other, occured almost weekly throughout the republic.
Well ... Islolated? Yes. Related? No. Rare? who knows?
I would have liked to let Saddam be let loose in the streets of iraq and let the people extract whatever punishment they deem necessary, but I am an evil, cold-hearted person for that.
It is a waste of time for us to even get involved with the trial, let them take care of it, and we can just watch from the sidelines and finish rebuilding what is needed to be.
Or we can just nuke the whole middle east area where this is an issue... but that is a bit extreme.
The sad part is many people do "decide at 11" without the proper information and without even wondering what right they have to make such a decision.
As my post was directly related to one of the topic starters subjects and the subsequent answer, I fail to see why.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Or we can just nuke the whole middle east area where this is an issue... but that is a bit extreme.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now we speak again about meaningful and sensible replies.
If you want me to answer whether or not the US should grant a fair trial for Saddam:
Yes, they should, because they were pretty much the ones who "invented" warcrime trials after WW2.
It is simple logic. If you pass a law, you have to follow it yourself. I don't understand what is the point of the discussion anyway. Whether Saddam deserves a trial or not is of no matter. If you set rules and try to enforce principles, you must follow them yourself or you lose credibility.
Yes, they should, because they were pretty much the ones who "invented" warcrime trials after WW2.
It is simple logic. If you pass a law, you have to follow it yourself. I don't understand what is the point of the discussion anyway. Whether Saddam deserves a trial or not is of no matter. If you set rules and try to enforce principles, you must follow them yourself or you lose credibility. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well you see that’s the interesting point of discussion here.
The people we're fighting don't give a damn about our "credibility" they’ll hate us the same ether way. If we followed every law to the letter they would just make stuff up anyway.
As far as most of the world is concerned we no longer have any "credibility” we've been losing "credibility" with the world since the end of WWII, I doubt we have much of it left to lose.
The only people we try to make feel better with our "credibility" is ourselves.
Of course it doesn’t take a genius to see the disadvantage this puts us at.
On one hand, I think that Saddam deserves a fair trial, just like any other human being. He may have been a tyrant, a murderer, and a terrible person, but he still deserves a fair trial. I am none to sure on the legalities of this, but couldn't he be tried in Europe for war crimes?
On the other hand, this man committed genocide in Iraq, and should probably be trialed there. If we were to take him away, I imagine that Iraq as a whole would not be very happy. It is already pretty dodgy over there, and taking Saddam would probably be seen by the population in a bad light. If I was living in Iraq, and had friends/family tortured by his regime, I would want revenge. Seeing Saddam swing would probably do a lot for public morale in the country, if nothing else.
The only war-crimes we could try him for would be the one we pushed him into against Iran, that would be it.
He could be tried as a potential terroist/genocide maniac, but usually they kill themselves before being captured. (Hitler?)
Its a lose-lose senario, if we give them over to them, he will not have a "fair" trial, not that I think he deserves one. If we don't, they could see it as a "no trust" issue, which would put us in the same place as if did give him over.
Basically the whole thing sucks.
(I don't see why nuking the entire middle east is so bad, it would solve a few issues... of course cause quite a few as well... <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> ) <--Extremist, not supposed to be taken seriously.
*pushes red button*
W3rd.
~ DarkATi
never happened, story was a hoax
as for saddam, he should be tried by his own people
And there Reasa, is the fundamental error in your thinking.
Hate does not spring out of a void. There is always a reason for hate and prejudice.
For example your recent endeavors into the realm of migration politics are understandable. Your concearns against hispanic immigration does have reasons that are viable, but equally viable are the reasons for hispanics to migrate to the US. You can't really blame them. Yet nobody can deny the negative influence of mass migration into an economy that is not growing accordingly...
Same goes for the prejudice in the arab society against westerners and most notably the US.
There are reasons why every step of the US is watched very closely and every little mistake and is noted.
And it has not always been like this!
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As far as most of the world is concerned we no longer have any "credibility” we've been losing "credibility" with the world since the end of WWII, I doubt we have much of it left to lose.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
True, but that does not come without reasons and it certainly is not impossible to change. It would take unpleasant measures and the question is, whether these measures are more costly than the current policy, which is quite possible ....
But on the other hand, if things go the way they are now, those unleasant measures will eventually happen anyway.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
The only people we try to make feel better with our "credibility" is ourselves.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is more in the world that just the US and then way you treat the rest of the world now will decide how you stand in the future, when the balance of power will change again.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Of course it doesn’t take a genius to see the disadvantage this puts us at.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, your president does not seem to understand. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Legat, your german example has no bearing on the current iraqi situation, I'm sorry if you can't see that.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That example was an efford to initiate some thinking about the recently very popular term "isolated cases".
You know, I have heard this far too often recently in many different occasions where politicians discount the result of personal incompetence.
And I have quite some experience with political BS.
Hate does not spring out of a void. There is always a reason for hate and prejudice. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Where did I say they didn't have good reason to hate us?
I was saying that they well hate us all the same whether we play by our rules or not. Now keep in mind, they don't abide by the rules were supposed to, but they demonize us when we break the most minor of rules.
I'm of the opinion that due to many unfortunate issues in our past, and present, no matter where I stand on them personally, our "credibility" has been damaged far beyond repair.
Critics of the US well always have these issues to turn to and there is nothing we can do about it.
If we worry more about "how well doing this affect our image in the world community" vs. "how well doing this benefit America" we will have to worry about our "credibility" much more because that is a recipe for defeat.
Possibly, yes. But in terms of foreign relations there is imho no such thing like FUBR.
Foreign relations can be improvend and normalized.
Look at Germany. Once the nation that laid waste to Europe, now one of the initiatiors of the EU (whatever one might think about it ...) and we even have a german Pope.
Have I said anything about the popes qualities? I don't agree with the church anyway. That's not the point here. The point is that the country that spawned the Nazis returned to normality and regained a respectable and stable reputation.
(well, somewhat, until the recent government started it's irratic course slipping from one éclat to the next).
Besides, what should Benedicts nationality imply about his political agenda? If anything has influenced him towards his conservative position, then it was the service in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, as Ratzinger was known (and heavily critizied) as a very liberal and progressive theologist in his youth. But there has already been a discussion about this so let's keep that out of here.
You used it as a "good" thing about the country, and while they have turned around quite a bit, there could be better things said about germany, which still has no bearing upon the iraq possible trial.
It has a bearing on the Iraq trials in regards to Reasas concearns whether the trials do matter or not.
Reasa stated his opinion that the reputation of the US is irreparably damadged and I expressed my opinion that this is not nessesarily the case.
Subsequently, I provided an example as of how a nation can improve its reputation from worst case to normal. I don't see your concerns about this being off topic.
Well the case of Germany is unique, as are all cases with such a topic.
Germany would still be a divided 3rd world country if it wasn't America, it’s not like the Germans picked themselves up by the boot straps and rebuilt their country all by themselves.
America and to a lesser extent the other members of NATO remade Germany, their newfound credibility came with the fact that they were rebuilt into an entirely new nation by a foreign power.
I don't see how this example really matches up with America's present dilemma.
What about Japan? Or more recently, what about the normalisation between The US and Sovjet Union during the times of Perestroika and afterwards? Who would have guessed that France and Germany would ever be Partners and considered the "motor" of Europes unification? (whatever's left of that but that's another story)
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Germany would still be a divided 3rd world country if it wasn't America, it’s not like the Germans picked themselves up by the boot straps and rebuilt their country all by themselves.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Truely, the descisions as of how to form the new Germany were initiated by the Allied powers. But don't be mistaken about Germanys condition after the war. The reason why it was redesinged as NATOs easternmost border agaisnt Stalin was that, besides the destrucion of most major urban centers, Germany still remained the country with the largest population and industrial capability on the Continent.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->America and to a lesser extent the other members of NATO remade Germany, their newfound credibility came with the fact that they were rebuilt into an entirely new nation by a foreign power.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The newfound credibility was the result of decades of hard labor of the republics first governments and a stable and reliable foreing policy. Oh, and soccer World Championship did play some part in it. <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't see how this example really matches up with America's present dilemma.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Of course it is not exactly <i>matching</i> the situation.It should merely show it is possible, since it is the worst case of bad relations I could think of right now.
And The US reputation is not sooooo bad, so there's still hope Reasa! <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I thought it was very relevant. He's giving an example of what happens if we all turn our heads and look someplace else. Yes, it most certainly does have significant bearing on the topic.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane @ Jun 10 2005+ 08:14 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Jun 10 2005 @ 08:14 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I would have liked to let Saddam be let loose in the streets of iraq and let the people extract weverhat punishment they deem necessary, but I am an evil, cold-hearted person for that.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ten bucks the majority of Iraqis would welcome him. He's a Muslim and he is no jingoistic foreign invader. I bet the people of Norway would have welcomed back Quisling if it meant that Hitler wasn't directly leering over their collective shoulder like a vulture (this is not a perfect analogy; the motives of the rulers differ - Hussein was deposed and Quisling was a turncoat).
What people need to realize is that being occupied by the most violent army in the world is significantly less pleasant than living a normal life under a dictator.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane @ Jun 10 2005+ 08:14 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Jun 10 2005 @ 08:14 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It is a waste of time for us to even get involved with the trial, let them take care of it, and we can just watch from the sidelines and finish rebuilding what is needed to be.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Arguably the entire point of the United States intervention was to nail Saddam. Have you ever heard of the Downing Street Memo? Essentially they're British tapes recorded long before the war even became an issue. According to sources, the tape includes both:
<ul>
</li><li>the administration admitting to planning to invade Iraq, contradicting their 'last resort' kneejerk defense when the public's nationalism burned off and they were actually held accountable for their actions
</li><li>That they were "fixing" false intelligence about WMDs
</li></ul>
Rep. Conyers is seeking to hear the details and this is already making waves. Read about it <a href='http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2520' target='_blank'>HERE</a>, if you're willing.
But I tell you once more - this was never about justice. The United States has shown an alarming ability to ignore what's right or tactful in the name of a higher cause, apparently handed down from The Lord himself. This time it's personal.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane @ Jun 10 2005+ 08:14 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Jun 10 2005 @ 08:14 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Or we can just nuke the whole middle east area where this is an issue... but that is a bit extreme.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A bit? What was that you were saying about Legat's contribution to the conversation?
I'd be carefull with those statements. I would choose a US occupation over a Russian or Chinese any day. <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
I thought it was very relevant. He's giving an example of what happens if we all turn our heads and look someplace else. Yes, it most certainly does have significant bearing on the topic. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually Dubblix it wasn't relevant in anyway, germany isn't iraq, they were never a third-world country, nor will they ever be. They also didn't have extreme fundamentalists that try to kill even their own people(Hitler removed all the jewish people before attempting to murder them, not to mention pronouncing them no longer german/austrian/etc). Not counting their leader.
<!--QuoteBegin-Dubbilex+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dubbilex)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane @ Jun 10 2005+ 08:14 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Jun 10 2005 @ 08:14 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I would have liked to let Saddam be let loose in the streets of iraq and let the people extract weverhat punishment they deem necessary, but I am an evil, cold-hearted person for that.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ten bucks the majority of Iraqis would welcome him. He's a Muslim and he is no jingoistic foreign invader. I bet the people of Norway would have welcomed back Quisling if it meant that Hitler wasn't directly leering over their collective shoulder like a vulture (this is not a perfect analogy; the motives of the rulers differ - Hussein was deposed and Quisling was a turncoat).
What people need to realize is that being occupied by the most violent army in the world is significantly less pleasant than living a normal life under a dictator.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ten bucks says he would be killed right off, unless one of the other factions go to him first. The reason? Oh I don't know... attempted genocide of anyone and everyone who didn't like him and said so? You are ignoring the fact he killed millions of his own people just because he could.
<!--QuoteBegin-dubbilex+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (dubbilex)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
But I tell you once more - this was never about justice. The United States has shown an alarming ability to ignore what's right or tactful in the name of a higher cause, apparently handed down from The Lord himself. This time it's personal.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Which is what makes our president an idiot, I haven't ever supported most of his decisions, I did support the war simply because Saddam was a threat to his own people, if not us.
His religious beliefs are getting in the way I will agree with that, however he did remove him quickly and with little effort.
<!--QuoteBegin-dubbilex+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (dubbilex)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane @ Jun 10 2005+ 08:14 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Jun 10 2005 @ 08:14 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Or we can just nuke the whole middle east area where this is an issue... but that is a bit extreme.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A bit? What was that you were saying about Legat's contribution to the conversation?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Since I did say I was joking before, and you missed it, obviously. How about we actually defend nuking the middle east.
1. It would be the easiest way to end all of this bickering about it.
2. It might be a few years before anyone could set foot there without being sick, but it would require all nations to start developing alternative fuels to oil, asap.
3. Since the countries in question are quite close to where I am from, I have no doubt that my home might be affected, however with what I have seen there I would not complian if that entire part of the world started over.
<!--QuoteBegin-Dubbilex+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dubbilex)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->What people need to realize is that being occupied by the most violent army in the world is significantly less pleasant than living a normal life under a dictator.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh yes, the United States military is <i>so</i> violent. They go where they are told and do what they are told, I see nothing wrong with that, not to mention the fact I have YET to see them being "the most violent army in the world".
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Initial invasion aside almost all the Iraqis getting killed now are being killed by their traitorous countrymen and foreign zealots.
Cyndane ... *sigh*
1.)
Saddam was no fundamentalist. He was a follower of the <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ba%27ath' target='_blank'>Ba'ath movement</a>.
2.)
The Nazis, the "National Socialists" were a movement that aimed at restoring the "Arish" people (read: all german speaking countries) to former unity and power. It was a counter-reaction against the foreing surpression of German military and economy regulated by the Treaty of Versaille. It was triggered because of the decay of public security and wealth under the Weimar Republic installed by foreign powers.
The Baathists were initially considered <a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Socialism' target='_blank'>arab socialists</a>. Their ideals were to unify the arab world under a socialistic/nationalistic governmental structure and to free the Arab World from foreign dominance.
It was a counterreaction to foreign political influence and the political weakness of the arab nations. The greatest success was achieved in Syria and Iraq. The movement later was torn apart by different political oppinions of their leaders. (e.g. Saddam submitting himself to the US and waging war against a fellow arab nation)
3.)
The Nazis were, like the communists, extremely hostile towards religious influence as they proposed a competition to their ultimate power. Hitler arranged himself with the Church later on to gain the Popes support.
The Baathist were largely opposing against religious political influences (like the communists... or the Nazis..).Later they started to support fundamental groups to gain their support against the US. Both the Lybian as well as the Iraqi Baathists did and do this.
4.)
The Nazis did eliminate everybody who expressed unwanted political opinions. Most notably, they erradicated the communist parties which were the second most important political opposition to the democratic government prior to WW2. The Nazis just managed to organize themselves more efficiently and were supported by the german industry and thus gained the upper hand.
Then, they killed thousand of political enemies and silenced the rest with fear.
Saddam killed off any political opposition in Iraq in the course of establishing his power. The most important opposistion was the Shiite majority which was brutally oppressed. Saddam was supported by a foreign power and thus was able to establish a minority as the dominant fraction. Then he killed thousands of people and silenced the rest with fear...
5.)
The Nazis killed all "unwanted elements" which were classified as enemies of the arish people. They detained and killed the jews, the Romas and Sinthi etc.
Saddam did detain and kill the kurdish tribes of northern Iraq, which are considered "unwanted elements" in many places in the middle east. (just ask the turkish Kurds about it ...)
Do you want more similarities? Totalitarism and extremism can be, in all cases, tracked down to similar if not equal roots. They do manifest in different ways, distinguished by cultural prerequesites, but the general mechanism stay the same. Every time.
------
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->His religious beliefs are getting in the way I will agree with that, however he did remove him quickly and with little effort.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And left anarchy and civil war in his wake
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Since I did say I was joking before, and you missed it, obviously. How about we actually defend nuking the middle east.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We should leave it at the joke ... don't you think? You don't really want to try justifying a nuclear genocide, don't you?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Initial invasion aside almost all the Iraqis getting killed now are being killed by their traitorous countrymen and foreign zealots.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, but let's not forget the new iraqi security force which is manily consiting of Shiites and Kurds which both have a bone or two to pick with the Sunnites.