Current/Recent World Conflicts thread.

[JediHunter]

What stuck out to me the most is..

... I still wouldn't believe him for a plug nickel.

Wow Tex, you're old..

 

@Eagle: We call ABC-Weapons WMD's (Weapons of Mass Destruction). However, I think I like ABC better... makes em sound fun! just kidding.. but really.. i do like ABC Weapons better than WMD... seems more descriptive to me.. WMD could be anything... including flatulence.. hahahaha... ok.. trailing back into my old little world now... ciao..

[SOCL]

ABC and NBC are the same thing. Atomic and Nuclear in this sense, namely weapon systems, are interchangeable. Neither is more correct than the other and, thus, neither is incorrect.

 

WMD, on the other hand, stands for Weapons of Mass Destruction. This includes, but is not limited to ABC/NBC weapons. A Weapon of Mass Destruction can be a non-nuclear ballistic missile, which doesn't fit under the ABC/NBC designation. As the name implies, a WMD is any weapon that can destroy in massive amounts--thus, ABC/NBC weapons are WMDs, but not all WMDs are ABC/NBC weapons.

 

Just thought I'd clear that bit up.

 

 

As for the invasion: I have a hard time putting out-right support for continued deployment when I have neighbors die before I even get a chance to get to know them, much less my friends who I already know. I also have a hard time supporting continued action when I hear constant negative conversation coming from officers within the Army, and I'm not talking about lieutenants, either. I'm talking field and general grade officers. They certainly don't make it public (or, at least, not until retirement, as has been the case with many who called for Rumsfeld's resignation) as they would lose their job, but they sure do let each other know. I just happen to be sitting at the same table or around the same bowl of punch as them. The amount of doubt I hear coming from them makes me worry because it's completely different from what official and Administration sources keep telling us. Of course, this could be a minority.

[Eagle]

Actually, Nazi Germany was no where near as far along developing the A-bomb as the Allies thought. The main German focus of using "heavy water" from Norway was actually taking them down the wrong path to developing the A-bomb. So, technically (in hindsight, after going through German papers after the war), Nazi Germany would have needed a dozen more years to get the A-bomb (if they ever got back on the right track).

There are eye-wittnesses, who lived in Penemuende, who told about a huge flashlight over the Northern Sea. Experts say that this kind of flashlight must have been from a nuclear test. That was about the time after the invasion of the Normandie as allied troops hadn´t reached the Rhine yet. You may remember that lots of german engeneers, who took a lot of secret documents with them, later were involved in the Manhattan Project.

 

Please do not compare Saddam with such a Dictator like Adolf Hitler. Saddam was nothing compared to him! (Yes, I´am disclaiming again Def )

 

According to the former head of the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, Hans Blix, more than 90 % of the iraqi arsenal of weapons of mass-destruction have just been destroyed at 1991. What you are talking about happened in the 80s. I heard about that they´d found some small grenades with mustard gas in it. But if you call that weapons of mass destruction every common bomb would be one. Of course, it just needs one single nuclear bomb to vanish Israel from the landscape. That´s why they keep an eye on Iran. But if even just one A-bomb was smuggled out of Iraq into another country before the invasion began our secret services would have been aware of that now.

 

"Oil", that's all a big hype thrown out by cry babies. If it was all about "oil", then why the hell isn't the price of gas in the US down to about 25 cents a gallon instead of a couple of bucks ($2+)?

Because they wouldn´t earn that much money than they just do now and they know that we all still need our car to drive to our jobs.

[Jahled]

I don´t see your point! The invasion of the Normandy had a quite different reason as the invasion of Iraq! The 3rd Reich was a much much bigger Threat to any free country in the world!

 

Agreed!

 

More simply, Hitler and his Nazi chums were on an active campaign of conquest. Iraq was not. They got the west's backing to invade Iran during the cold war, achieved nothing more than squandering the lives of a million young Iraqi and Iranian men with may I add the help of some nerve gas the USA sold him. Iraq then invaded Kuwait and quite rightly got it's arse kicked by a united coalition of nations backed by the United Nations, which included numerous Middle Eastern nations who were quite rightly fearful of a tyrant such as Saddam in control of so much oil supply. I thought the people who protested against that war to be absolute twats.

 

However, the present invasion and ongoing occupation had no context. Saddam had no capability or economic interest in invading any of his neighbours. He got soundly thrashed ten years before by a united coalition, and would gain nothing by exhausting his military machine again on some pointless military enterprise.

 

Saddam DID have weapons of "mass destruction". What do you think killed all of those Kurds (Iraqi citizens mind you)? Just because he used VX nerve gas or mustard gas on his own people, instead of an A-bomb doesn't change the significance. Oh, and he did use gas weapons (weapons of mass destruction) on Iran during their little 10 year war.So, he's used gas weapons at least twice before in his past, and then says "I don't have weapons of mass destruction". Are you really naive enough to believe him? Even if he did destroy them all (which he wouldn't let the UN verify), I still wouldn't believe him for a plug nickel. Now, what about the munitions that were recovered that were still loaded with mustard gas (a weapon of mass destruction)? What, you maybe didn't hear about this? Now why is that? Maybe the media didn't give it top notch billing like "ANOTHER SOLDIER DIED! Oh my, Bush is leading the world to oblivion! (** boo who, boo who I'm crying with fear **)".

 

Yes, we sold the gas that murdered all those people to him. I won't harp on about this any further because it was during the cold war when Iraq was an ally against an even greater evil that was communism and the threat of Soviet fascist supremacy; though I do have misgivings about the morality of selling an obvious tyrant, even if an political ally, such barbaric weapons of mass destruction, as you quite rightly boot them Tex. And a good point, you quite rightly point out has been ignored or mutated by the media.

 

And what about the Russian convoy that left Iraq going to Syria days before the invasion began? Maybe a Russian somebody spilled the beans to Saddam that the US is coming and doesn't believe anything he's saying anymore; that invasion is imminent. Well you better get your crap (weapons of mass destruction) out of the country ASAP, so that in the future (should you survive) you can throw this in their face and try to get some support from your people (Sunni that is). I'm sure with the Billions of dollars Saddam scammed from the UN Food-for-Oil folly, he paid off the Ruskies to "help him out".

 

A Point me thinks you might have missed Tex is the threat it posed us, more immediately as Europe, or you guys the other side of the world in America. He would have had to have the means to deliver the 'huge' stoke piles of toxins, or that little veil Powell produced at the Security Council, to us via missiles, which was a technology he clearly did not have, or was anywhere near having; and as I pointed out above, why on earth would it be in his interest?

 

The shear stupidity in all this, is the fact there was no military threat from Saddam's Iraq following his utter defeat during the first gulf war. He learnt his lesson, but still smug with a very handsome oil revenue we were happy to continue trading with, whilst NATO maintained a ten year air-blockade of the country. I appreciate this might have gone in some way to full-fill it's mission profile in protecting minorities like the Kurds from the barbarity of his tyrannical sense of vengeance, but it does point out how incapable Iraq was in posing a threat to us was.

 

 

"Oil", that's all a big hype thrown out by cry babies. If it was all about "oil", then why the hell isn't the price of gas in the US down to about 25 cents a gallon instead of a couple of bucks ($2+)? If the US wanted, it would be pumping Iraq dry quicker than snot to get that oil ASAP and hiding it all over America to use in the future, wouldn't you think?

 

You pay that little Tex? Hell, there's always the long run, the more so given how much modern Russia is exerting it's economic clout over pipelines into Europe, tax with former block states, etc. Plus Nigeria is ever the spackoid unreliable African state, and Venezuela seems to want to swiftly become one..

 

/just my rant fellas

 

[DarthTex]

Actually, Nazi Germany was no where near as far along developing the A-bomb as the Allies thought. The main German focus of using "heavy water" from Norway was actually taking them down the wrong path to developing the A-bomb. So, technically (in hindsight, after going through German papers after the war), Nazi Germany would have needed a dozen more years to get the A-bomb (if they ever got back on the right track).

There are eye-wittnesses, who lived in Penemuende, who told about a huge flashlight over the Northern Sea. Experts say that this kind of flashlight must have been from a nuclear test. That was about the time after the invasion of the Normandie as allied troops hadn´t reached the Rhine yet. You may remember that lots of german engeneers, who took a lot of secret documents with them, later were involved in the Manhattan Project.

In all of my years I've never heard of a "huge flashlight over the Northern Sea". If it was a nuclear test, I'm sure the whole world would have been told. Your paragraph implies that German engineers brought secret documents to the US after D-Day. I'm not sure if this is what you meant, but that's not the case. German scientists came to the US in the 30's. The Manhatten project was well on its way by D-Day and didn't require any secret documents from Penemuende.

 

Please do not compare Saddam with such a Dictator like Adolf Hitler. Saddam was nothing compared to him! (Yes, I´am disclaiming again Def )

Why not? A dictator is a dictator. Is there a difference if only a couple of million people were killed instead of 20+ million? In my opinion he's a dictator. He treated his people just as brutally.

 

According to the former head of the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, Hans Blix, more than 90 % of the iraqi arsenal of weapons of mass-destruction have just been destroyed at 1991. What you are talking about happened in the 80s. I heard about that they´d found some small grenades with mustard gas in it. But if you call that weapons of mass destruction every common bomb would be one. Of course, it just needs one single nuclear bomb to vanish Israel from the landscape.

Mustard gas in grenades? That sounds as practical an atomic hand grenade (you better be a pretty darn fast sprinter ). The mustard gas I was referring to was found in artillery shells.

 

The shear stupidity in all this, is the fact there was no military threat from Saddam's Iraq following his utter defeat during the first gulf war. He learnt his lesson, but still smug with a very handsome oil revenue we were happy to continue trading with, whilst NATO maintained a ten year air-blockade of the country. I appreciate this might have gone in some way to full-fill it's mission profile in protecting minorities like the Kurds from the barbarity of his tyrannical sense of vengeance, but it does point out how incapable Iraq was in posing a threat to us was.

 

 

"Oil", that's all a big hype thrown out by cry babies. If it was all about "oil", then why the hell isn't the price of gas in the US down to about 25 cents a gallon instead of a couple of bucks ($2+)? If the US wanted, it would be pumping Iraq dry quicker than snot to get that oil ASAP and hiding it all over America to use in the future, wouldn't you think?

 

You pay that little Tex? Hell, there's always the long run, the more so given how much modern Russia is exerting it's economic clout over pipelines into Europe, tax with former block states, etc. Plus Nigeria is ever the spackoid unreliable African state, and Venezuela seems to want to swiftly become one..

 

/just my rant fellas

 

I agree that Saddam wasn't a military threat. But then why pursue WMD research? Why deny the UN verifications? And you are correct about the "very handsome oil revenue" that was going into his pockets, even though it was supposed to be for humanitarian purposes. But instead it became bribe money for hundreds of political worms so Saddam could get whatever he wanted (legal or not). If Saddam knew he was military inferior, why not strike back through a third party? Terrorists? Who's to say they wouldn't have received help from Saddam (financially, training, etc)?

 

Europe definitely has alot more to worry about than the US from muslims. They seem to be immigrating that way by the hordes and slowing taking over neighborhoods and ways of life. The riots in France, the bombings in London; what's next? Good luck to you guys over the pond.

 

Yeah J, gas has always been relatively cheap over here compared to Europe. You guys should really be the ones complaining loudly

[ElvisMiggell]

Petrol!

 

And it's basically a £0.90 a litre at the moment. last summer it made it to £1! Bloody ridiculous!

[SOCL]

Europe definitely has alot more to worry about than the US from muslims. They seem to be immigrating that way by the hordes and slowing taking over neighborhoods and ways of life. The riots in France, the bombings in London; what's next? Good luck to you guys over the pond.

I really don't want to become involved, but I feel a need to say something: there is a distinct difference between Muslims and Islamists. I know, maybe this may seem like what some people call petty political correctness, but please be mindful and sensitive of others on these forums and making generalizations. I have many friends and I have family who are Muslim--it doesn't make them terrorists or some sort of invaders...

[Defender_16]

We've been hovering arround $0.86 CDN per Litre for Gas. But then that's about the price where we can produce our own with extraction from the Tar Sands.

[JediHunter]

Europe definitely has alot more to worry about than the US from muslims. They seem to be immigrating that way by the hordes and slowing taking over neighborhoods and ways of life. The riots in France, the bombings in London; what's next? Good luck to you guys over the pond.

I really don't want to become involved, but I feel a need to say something: there is a distinct difference between Muslims and Islamists. I know, maybe this may seem like what some people call petty political correctness, but please be mindful and sensitive of others on these forums and making generalizations. I have many friends and I have family who are Muslim--it doesn't make them terrorists or some sort of invaders...

 

I dont think anyone was trying to say that SOCL... besides isnt Islamist just another word for muslim? being that muslims are followers of the Islam religion??... i think you meant extremists in this case... and muslims just happen to be the terrorists in this situation... granted they are EXTREMIST muslims... but they are muslims none the less... and noone once said all muslims are terrorists.. that would be as ignorant as saying all college students are liberals.. or all americans are lazy... and so on and so on.. noone ever qualified that extremist catholics were the ones responsible for the spanish inquisition... its just known.. as its known that saddam and his cohorts are extremists...

Personally I'm kinda tired of having to pussyfoot around the subject just because one person is going to cry about it... whatever happened to people being real and not sugar coating everything?..

[DarthTex]

Europe definitely has alot more to worry about than the US from muslims. They seem to be immigrating that way by the hordes and slowing taking over neighborhoods and ways of life. The riots in France, the bombings in London; what's next? Good luck to you guys over the pond.

I really don't want to become involved, but I feel a need to say something: there is a distinct difference between Muslims and Islamists.

OK, I didn't know that. What is the difference?

 

I know, maybe this may seem like what some people call petty political correctness, but please be mindful and sensitive of others on these forums and making generalizations.

You're correct, it does seem petty. "please be mindful and sensitive of others on these forums and making generalizations"; WOW ! As moderator SOCL, that should give you a full time job for life. It might be easier shutting down the Outside Interests thread and banning Tofu. There's no way to enforce PC (political correctness) without becoming an oppressor. Just look at Dark Officer (aka SS Officer) and his avatar; brow beaten by a few after being tolerated by hundreds (if not thousands) of SWR members over the last couple of years. I'm not saying his choice was the best, but it was others who saw offense in it and harassed him into change. I guess GAT (Grand Admiral Thrawn) is next ... he's got Admiral Donitz in his signature block

 

There is always someone, somewhere who will find offense with something, somewhere on this website.

 

I have many friends and I have family who are Muslim--it doesn't make them terrorists or some sort of invaders...

Nobody said they were or are, especially me; I don't even know your friends or family. And I believe I said "immigrating", definitely not "invading"

[Eagle]

Just look at Dark Officer (aka SS Officer) and his avatar; brow beaten by a few after being tolerated by hundreds (if not thousands) of SWR members over the last couple of years. I'm not saying his choice was the best, but it was others who saw offense in it and harassed him into change. I guess GAT (Grand Admiral Thrawn) is next ... he's got Admiral Donitz in his signature block

I see that this whole topic is going into a hard discussion so I don´t want to make it worse. Just want to mention that you shall think about it if somebody here in the forum would call himself for example Ossama Bin Laden with an avatar of Bin Ladens picture. Could you tolerate that too? I guess not!

 

What belongs to Doenitz, he wasn´t a Nazi. He was the comander in chief of the german navy, allthough he forced Hitlers Power with his ruthless naval strategies.

[DarthTex]

I see that this whole topic is going into a hard discussion so I don´t want to make it worse. Just want to mention that you shall think about it if somebody here in the forum would call himself for example Ossama Bin Laden with an avatar of Bin Ladens picture. Could you tolerate that too? I guess not!

Well, you would be wrong. I might not like it, but there's really nothing I could do about it (except tolerate it or whine). Freedom of Speech is a double-edged sword. As they say "Don't dish it out if you can't take it", and after all of these years I've developed a thick skin (so to speak, well ... mostly)

[SOCL]

Islamist is actually the word used for Muslim Extremist. I can understand how it would sound like something "Islamic" or something "Islamist" would seem to be the same as Muslim in the same sense "Christian" or both the noun and modifier (that is, adjective) of Christianity. Even so, something isn't Muslim, rather, it's Islamic. In the case of extremist who kill and carry out actions in the name of Islam, yet are not accepted by the main-stream, they are referred to as "Islamist" (no matter what they may call themselves). It's the same situation when members of the KKK call themselves Christians: no one really agrees. And to clear it up, Islamic is the modifier for something that is of the faith of Islam, that is, something being nonhuman. Therefore a mosque is Islamic, a worshiper at a mosque is a Muslim, and someone like bin Laden is an Islamist.

 

I apologize for not making the distinction clear when I made my previous post.

 

 

 

Relating to the topic, this report by NPR states that General Abazaid (US Army), after resigning from his post as Commander, US Central Command will be replaced by a Navy Admiral (an unusual development, to say the least), but more interesting concerns the command of ground operations in Iraq. In a surprise move, the eternally loyal General George Casey is being replaced. I find this very strange because Casey has been there virtually every single day since the invasion began and pulling someone who has been there that long without warning of any sort seems to signify a stark change in the wings. If nothing else, the fact General Petraeus (who I actually know personally) is being appointed to the post is telling of a huge change. I realize that Petraeus isn't that well known (despite being prominently displayed in the most recent "Time" magazine and his lightning-fast ascension in the hierarchy), but those who know him and those who have served under him know quite well that he is nothing like Casey to the point of being near-rivals. Further, Petraeus is still a Lieutenant General (three stars) filling a post filled before by a four-star General: telling of Petraeus' continued ascension, as well as his ability.

 

General Petraeus is a great commander and individual. I can only hope that his appointment to the post is a good thing.

[Eagle]

@Tex

I know that lots of things are tolerated in the US, like Nazi-Symbols aso. We feel very uncomfortable about that here in germany. And one thing I also want to mention is that Verdex and me asked Darth_Officer to do that. He was so kind and wise and changed his name and his avatar. If he didn´t wanted to do that we also had to cope with it. We´ve never said that he has to do it! Because that would belong to the owner of this site, the admins and the mods.

 

So and now please back to topic!

[SOCL]

@Tex

I know that lots of things are tolerated in the US, like Nazi-Symbols aso. We feel very uncomfortable about that here in germany. And one thing I also want to mention is that Verdex and me asked Darth_Officer to do that. He was so kind and wise and changed his name and his avatar. If he didn´t wanted to do that we also had to cope with it. We´ve never said that he has to do it! Because that would belong to the owner of this site, the admins and the mods.

On a final comment, though, I want to make it quite clear that the administration had nothing to do with Darth_Officer's change in both name and avatar. Certainly it must have been an administrator who changed the name, but only at Darth_Officer's request, not at the insistence of anyone on the staff. Indeed, you'll note no staff members commented on the matter, either.

[DarthTex]

... I also want to mention is that Verdex and me asked Darth_Officer to do that. He was so kind and wise and changed his name and his avatar...

Have you ever considered running for the Galatic Senate, or maybe even Supreme Chancellor?

 

j/k

 

 

@SOCL: I realized that; good point

[SOCL]

As for the negative media hype mentioned earlier about the 3,000th US soldier fatality; compare this conflict with about any other major conflict in the past US history (history for most) and you'd be surprised by the opposite . For the US on June 6, 1944 (the Battle of Normandy) had approximately over 29,000 dead over a period of a month or two; quite the difference between 29,000 vs 3,000, and two months vs ~3.75 years.

I understand the idea of comparing fatalities between the conflict in Iraq and other wars, but there's a major dilemma in doing this, namely that medicine and medical technologies have come a very long way since World War II or even more recent conflicts like those in Korea and Vietnam--hell, the technological advances since the Gulf War, about 15 years, are amazing on there own. Another figure is 22,000: that's the number of non-fatal major casualties sustained in combat operations in Iraq. (read or listen to this report) In this sense, saying that 3,000 is a low number because more died in one battle of one war alone (i.e. the Battle of Normandy) is, as you said, comparing apples and oranges--they simply do not match up. Besides which, World War II was a conflict of various nations from across the world, not one nation primarily leading others in the invasion of a nation whose military has been destroyed and whose new enemy is a native-born insurgency instigated by foreigners, albeit minimal. The very fact more troops were thrown into the mix during World War II alone explains why there were more casualties in that war than in this one. In any event, the number of casualties following the conclusion of "Major Combat Operations" is on the rise, and by quite a margin.

 

As for the "liberal media" bit that I keep hearing over and over (and over) again, remember when in October the media made a big deal about the fact that US fatalities in Iraq would be the highest since early 2005/late 2004? Yes, well, in the end October's fatality for the USA came to 110. Well, did they do quite as much near-counting-down when the death-toll for December came to 118? No, not nearly as much as they did for October. Most people I have spoken to, in fact, had no idea December had a higher casualty rate than October, though clearly remember the media blitz over the death-toll three months ago. This has nothing to do with liberal media. In the end, it all depends what party is in power, and I don't mean Congress, I mean who holds the presidency. This is the very same reason why during the Clinton Administration then-First Lady Hillary Clinton made her famous remark over a "vast right-wing conspiracy" of which she specifically named the media. It's just political mumbo-jumbo, which the media enjoys as it gives them more to report: a vicious cycle. The media will, invariably, criticize whoever is in power--more so whoever holds the presidency as they are 1) a single person and 2) easier to criticize than Congressmen and -women who can easily point fingers at another--because that person is in the limelight and they are running the nation. That's the way it happens in every presidency because the people out of power are not nearly as interesting as those invested in running the country--in that sense, they brought it upon themselves. Decision-makers are the epicenter of the evils of the nation, so the media is liberal when Republicans control the Presidency, and the media is conservative when the Democrats control the Presidency.

 

Really, I could care less what the media says. It will influence politics and decision-making, but what can we do about? Ban the media? No, we just let them do what they do, and that is attract readers. This is why I prefer the BBC over the private news networks and companies: because they owe no loyalty to readers; rather, they put out the news whether people listen or not. This is the same reason I prefer NPR.

 

But that's just my bit.

[Eagle]

Just look who´s the owner of the tv-/radio-station and to whom he is related. Whether a partie or a person and you understand why and how they report about something.

Have you ever considered running for the Galatic Senate, or maybe even Supreme Chancellor?

So I´m your nominee?

[DarthTofu]

Ding dong, Sadam is dead!

[Lord_La_forge]

http://www.petitiononline.com/kry00ion/petition.html

[Jahled]

*votes*

[DarthTex]

Saddam's Half Brother, Top Aide Hanged

 

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Two top aides to Saddam Hussein were hanged before dawn Monday, and the head of one of them - the former Iraqi dictator's half brother Barzan Ibrahim - was severed from his body during the execution, a government official said.

 

(From page 6 of this very thread)

What most people don't know is lynching is an art. The size and stretch of the rope, the weight of the ... convicted, and the counterweight all play an important part in a well executed hanging. Now, if the rope is not elastic enough, it could break (the injured convict is then, re-hanged) or rip the head off the convict (which is a mess to clean up). Same goes for the counterweight if it was too heavy (i.e. ripping the head off), but if it was too light ... the convict's neck wouldn't break quickly and nicely, and they would s-l-o-w-l-y suffocate. Truly an excuriatingly slow and painful death. Well, back in the day, a well respected convict would get a new rope for his hanging (that usually equated to a quick and humane death), otherwise the sheriff would "save some money" and use an old rope, which could "malfunction" so to speak Too bad most of the ol' Texan sheriffs are now at Boot Hill; they could give Saddam a proper hangin'

 

Don't say I didn't warn you Although Saddam's hanging went per plan; his half-brothers only worked ... half way

[Jahled]

Saddam's Half Brother, Top Aide Hanged

 

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Two top aides to Saddam Hussein were hanged before dawn Monday, and the head of one of them - the former Iraqi dictator's half brother Barzan Ibrahim - was severed from his body during the execution, a government official said.

 

(From page 6 of this very thread)

What most people don't know is lynching is an art. The size and stretch of the rope, the weight of the ... convicted, and the counterweight all play an important part in a well executed hanging. Now, if the rope is not elastic enough, it could break (the injured convict is then, re-hanged) or rip the head off the convict (which is a mess to clean up). Same goes for the counterweight if it was too heavy (i.e. ripping the head off), but if it was too light ... the convict's neck wouldn't break quickly and nicely, and they would s-l-o-w-l-y suffocate. Truly an excuriatingly slow and painful death. Well, back in the day, a well respected convict would get a new rope for his hanging (that usually equated to a quick and humane death), otherwise the sheriff would "save some money" and use an old rope, which could "malfunction" so to speak Too bad most of the ol' Texan sheriffs are now at Boot Hill; they could give Saddam a proper hangin'

 

Don't say I didn't warn you Although Saddam's hanging went per plan; his half-brothers only worked ... half way

 

[Grand_Admiral_Thrawn]

Honestly, the whole thing's a farce. Yes they both needed to be killed, but Saddam's execution was a pathetic media move, and could have been performed in a far more professional manner. And this other fellow being decapitated? How badly do you have to botch a hanging to take the guy's head off? Pathetic...

[JediHunter]

And this other fellow being decapitated? How badly do you have to botch a hanging to take the guy's head off? Pathetic...

Not very badly really.... it just takes some miscalculation.. and if my job has taught me anything.. is that miscalculation can happen quite easily and unless you check your numbers methodically or have others check you methodically it could lead to failure.... trust me.. ive made an oops before..