Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
It's just been announced that they're going to hang him.
How are the Iraquis going to react to this?
comes up with the right answer occasionally.
shock shock horror... da da da
Hey, look everyone, its the middle ages !
I say punish dealers the same or harder than users
i think most of them will be glad he's gone.
though is it? Violence breeds violence. They should have just given him his job back - that would have been punishment enough at the moment.
go to the logical extreme and hang draw and quarter him.
i hate that margaret beckett says it's 'iraqi justice'; what does that actually mean? that it's in iraq's history that they traditionally hang people? that's terrible. surely if the idea is that we're introducing liberal democracy to iraq, that's something we should stop (seeing as the west has influenced the trial in every other way). bleurgh, the whole thing is wrong wrong wrong.
Iraq`s civil war
to make the decision that the death penalty is wrong.
BUT I really didn't think it would happen. I really thought that people power would reduce the sentencing to life imprisonment. But hey, what's it matter? Civil war is going to break out anyway...
it is the same as letting tony blair resign.. that twat should be made to work day and night to clear up the mess he has made.
people think he should resign because he's incapable of forfilling the duties of the job. like if a headmaster did an utterly terrible job of running a school, and lied about his conduct, you wouldn't want him to be the man to make things better, because he's incapable of doing so.
even though every PM has protection from the law all they have to say is "I did it for the good of the country" and they can walk away.
"you killed thousands, now we kill you..."
"hmm, not some of my friends as well? my pets?"
I think it's a bad decision.
a) Capital punishment is always a mistake. What's the point of justice if you're just going to stoop to the level of those you convict?
b) Despite all his crimes, this will be perceived by many as a political assassination.
c) As long as he's locked up in prison he's a sad old man. If he's dead, he's a martyr.
I might not personally agree with capital punishment, but then I haven't had my entire family tortured to death in a prison for alleged crimes.
I can understand the jubilation at the result in Iraq.
As for whether we should be even allowing the courts to hang them - let's get real: We can't even stop people wearing veils, circumcising little girls and 'excorcising' demons from children by rubbing peppers in their eyes - what made anything think we could persuade the new Iraqi legal system to give up their death penalty? Especially in a case such as this.
Not to mention the fact that the war was preosecuted by Americans for the main part - who also have the death penalty. It's hardly hypocrisy on their part.
first speculated that the death penalty might be used, a White House spokesperson condemned it publically. it's rather odd.
like how women in the British Empire had the vote before women in Britain did.
and I share the views expressed by theguywithnousername above ^^^^^^ entirely.
All it does is provide vindication of the law.
But I guess there's always two sides to every story.
Nothing like a bit of justice by representation to stir up opinions...
i cant see how any good is gonna come out of this. I personally think Sadam will be seen as some sort of martyr being executed like this, and i think that this will send irag into even more violence and chaos. Its a sorry situation.
the people who see him as a martyr already like him? the vast majority of people in iraq will celebrate his death - savages. or something.
Is the decision correct? There are three persepctives to consider:
Moral perspective: Most sane people would view the actions of the Iraqi government toward many of the people of Iraq as dispicable, disgusting and murderous. Therefore, his death can be seen as morally acceptable.
Legal perspective: The whole "legal" process of the court has been a farce. It is a court set up under the gun of American and Brish armed forces. It has no leagl integrity at all. The proceedings and the verdict are a joke from a legal perspective.
Political perspective: The death of Hussein is a political action and will be perceived as such. His death will polarise political views that already exist. It will be noted that similar actions by other leaders of other countries ahve not been dealt with in the same way and that many have been lauded, for example, the dropping of atomic bombs by the Americans in 1945.
i.e. 'what does it achieve'? fuck all, imho
we should let him go?
personally i think we should keep him alive and prosecute him for every single one of his crimes.
is completely flawed.
after all they have been responsible for thousands of deaths and the war is illegal yet nothing is done. makes me sick.
in almost every other case I'm be completely against it, but for some reason I'm not in this case and can understand on the one hand why it almost should be done, but then again hmm.
It's hard to decide about the whole Martyr'ing thing. In a way by keeping him alive he is still a powerful figurehead for his supporters, whether and active one or not.
It's a crucial point for Iraq obviously, but risky, it could either further polarise opinions or somehow help.
To finish, I have no fucking idea what my opinion is but I can only hope it helps.
"they have been responsible for thousands of deaths"
there is a question of intent. and the Lancet survey showed that most of the deaths in Iraq were caused by the 'insurgency'
"the war is illegal"
That is a facile analogy.
1. I'm sure it's not at all what all Iraqis want. There is every possibility of a full-on civil war because of this.
2. Hanging is utterly barbaric, no matter how terrible the crime is.
3. This is not real justice. Saddam, nasty as he probably was, deserves a proper, fair trial.
4. I bet the Americans are regretting even going NEAR Iraq.
the amercians have killed more iraqis than saddam ever did...
If you say so...
"the amercians have killed more iraqis than saddam ever did.."
absolute fucking garbage
very provocative fullerov.
but i agree.
prefer to see him starve to death in David Blaines box thingy
What are we gonna do about it? Hang him!
Old school and brutal. Maybe they could stick up his severed head on the city gates of Baghdad. I bet that'd go down a treat with the elderly.
if it is i think that's a recipe for DiSaster.
I dunno if it will be filmed though? I magone the authorites would, but I hope it isn't shown on mainstream telly
we go into Iraq supposedly to help them and install democracy (as if we have the right to do that). We fuck it all up, and put in a regime that still allows public hanging.
And the politicians still call it a success!
what has capital punishment got to do with democracy?
installed a democracy, not even the foundations of one
also, the shi'ite law was there anyway.
and I think even they have to admit it sin't a success :)
a democracy. we have just absolutely failed to establish security, the rule of law etc.
the whole thing is apalling. What are they now claiming the point of the war was?
Margaret Beckett said the trial verdict was a victory for 'Iraqi justice'. So hypocritical it's beyond belief.
the hypocrisy here. please enlighten me.
that they said Saddam Hussain had to be removed as he was a sovereign who sanctioned killing people, and replaced him with with another load of people who also condone public execution, THEN saying that this is a good thing, slightly silly?
Maybe it's not hypocritical, maybe it's ironic. i dunno, i'm tired. But it's definitely wrong.
"a sovereign who sanctioned killing people'
that was never the case for the war.
and if you can't tell the difference between a politically motivated killing of the guilty as opposed to a politically motivated killing of the innocent then i can't really help you
i think the killing of anyone is wrong, doesn't matter what they've done.
and What was the case for war? WMD's? and what is the justification now?
"i think the killing of anyone is wrong, doesn't matter what they've done."
So do i, but to draw moral equivalence between the execution of Saddam and the crimes of Saddam is atrocious.
I've already said I oppose the death penalty in this context but to pretend that there is no distinction to be made between executing someone for murder and executing someone for dissent is wide of the mark. For example, I think it is deplorable that some countries lock people up for the crime of homosexuality. Am I morally inconsistent if I support the imprisonment of people on lesser crimes?
and Idi Amin (Actually I may know, but its the rhetorical question that is most important)
Fled to his ally in Libya.
Noriega is in prison in Florida
will he ever?
What do i think about current affairs?
um, I like them, I think they're good"
gassed to death would be better, indieandyjones's boss will be the first of many to squat over his trussed bodies nose and let rip, followed by other people who feel so inclined.....Basically a variation of the old idea of being put in the stocks and let the crowd have a go.......he wouldnt actually last very long
I guess following orders is no excuse for genocide
I'm also guessing that he wont be hung - I think the appeal court will commute his sentence to life imprisonment
the only man in the world who deserves the death penalty is henry kissing.
thanks to his execution, all the people he killed are going to be magically brought back to life.
against the death penalty.
It is NOT a deterrent at all.
Saying that I am in favour for it in certain circumstances for a very limited number of people.
Because of this view I have absolutely no problem with Saddam Hussein being executed.
will it deter would be practitioners of genocide?
nah, take your point though
Death Penalty doesn't deter anyone.
sitting next to me says Saddam should be executed as it's the only way to prevent him potentially coming back to power in a coup later on.
I don't have the patience or the nous to argue with him.
I need a good one-liner.
that but he got around it somehow. He's a tricky fellow.
"Dude. You. Are. Stupid"
should be executed at the same time.
theyre just as bad in alot of ways.
they are not.
I don't like ANY of them...but still.
thousands of civilians.
you're talking BS.
Name some examples Mass Murder committed by one of the three....
Dagnammit probably believes Bush is responsible for the episcopal inquisition
and maybe you will learn a few things.
this should be fun...
well.....I read things every day.
I think you are talking Bullshit on this subject.
dagnammit doesn't appear willing to provide you with evidence of Cheney's apparent 'mass murder' hence his resort to that timeless strategy of pretending you read more than your antagonist.
what a comeback!
perhaps you can be specific in your reading suggestion?
I would suggest you read the most 2006 Hopkins study of excess mortality in Iraq. It should reveal that most of the deaths in that country since the war ended haven't been caused by the occupying troops but by the insurgency.
sorry. let's not get personal. but i do think that to pretend that bush & saddam are morally comparable is bullshit of the highest order and you should explain yourself.
seriously. I would be reluctant to draw comparisons between Bush and Nixon, let alone Bush and Hussein.
i am back at a pc now.
apart from the illegal war in iraq- in which thousands of cilians and conscripts were needlessly killed in the name of securing oil supplies for the immediate future and lining the pockets of the companies that got bush to power- please do some research into US sponsored/supported/supplied/actioned atrocities in east timor, nicargua, lebanon, palestine, vietnam and south east asia, afghanistan and sudan. rumsfeld was involved in many of these, bush and his dad in some too, cheney is the driving force between the current war 'of' terror.
in reference to the hopkins study on iraq, "most of the deaths" have been caused by the insurgency. beside the fact this is an insurgency that would not have happened had bush not caused a power vacuum by invading, does it mean that the minority of deaths (still in the tens of thousands) can be ignored becuase the insurgents have killed more?
"this is an insurgency that would not have happened had bush not caused a power vacuum by invading"
so what's your alternative? a strongman dictator to preserve order? perhaps by brutalising innocent people?
what that study does show is that america isn't the problem in iraq.
where to begin .... iraq's oil export capacity is severely limited. in the next 20-30 years, iraq won't sell enough oil to PAY for the war in iraq, let alone make it profitable. but you insist that it was the primary motivation for the war.
more likely, oil was the primary reason for the opposition of Russia and France to the war, but not to worry. You've decided that because some members of the bush administration have backgrounds in the oil industry and because iraq has large oil reserves, this war must have been about oil.
and i have read widely on what i presume are the incidents to whch you refer. what did rumsfeld have to do with the invasion of east timor? or, in fact, any of the places you refer to?
in the 1980s he was a special envoy to the middle east which suggests pretty limited involvement in latin america or south east asia.
unless you can provide me with something relatively specific about rumsfeld's involvement in any incidents in the middle east then it's pretty bizarre to say he's as bad as saddam.
your argument appears to be that because america did some awful things during the cold war they must remain uniquely evil.
it's bizarre and illogical
I don't support the war in Iraq.
It has turned out to be based on pretty flawed intelligence, and has been mishandled terribly by the Bush administration.
This does not make Bush et al Mass Murderers...
but seriously, i can't be arsed with this. i have my own political opinions based on things i believe- you have your own opinions Jacob.
without spending hours referencing my sources, this debate will go nowhere as neither of us will move an inch.
though i will refer you to my original use of "in some ways". their behaviour is comparable, not the same. (though murder of thousands is still the same be it from a dictator or a "democratically elected" president).
The bottom line.
and war=LOTS OF DEATH.
there is no bottom line.
"war=LOTS OF DEATH"
it clearly isn't as simple as that. often non-war = lots of death. see iraq between the two wars.
That is absolutely preposterous. There are more important things in the world than how much you like George Bush.
will come away from this smelling of roses......apart from me, my hands are clean and my heart is pure and unsullied
how politics and interventions have worked in this area nor have I ever. I will sleep easy tonight, I suggest that you lot dont get drawn into a debate too much lest you get tarnished (unfairly) with a brush that was not of your own making
JJ the and the like, you are starting to get into the minutiae of stuff that is attempted explanations for which you do not have a complete and overall picture, you have mined too deep without shoring up, these arguments rely too heavily on events that have been driven by others, none of you have to defend what has happened or any of the now more limited future alternatives, we would all have acted differently, ours were not the decisions that created this mess, nor is there any way that you could have voted for this to not happen, nor is there any way for you to have successfully protested to stop this, nor was there any more drastic action that you could have taken.........the only feasible action woud have been if a decade or two ago you had started a campaign.....but then again hindsight is a wonderful thing and who would know where best to start a campaign, which wrong to right eh?
if colin powell's post-war reconstruction plans were implemented, the war would have been worth supporting.
at jacobjones's comment
do you not think a successful post-war reconstruction would have justified the war? i don't see why you wouldn't.
because part of the reason many were against the war was the extreme difficulty of the post-war reconstruction and its very likely failure..
the war not because i thought post-war reconstruction would be difficult but because the americans couldn't be trusted to take it seriously enough. and i think efforts have failed BECAUSE they haven't taken it seriously enough.
i'm sorry but i really don't think most people opposed the war on that basis though. i certainly didn't see that on the one STWC march i went on.
weren't knowingly presented as false. certainly not in this country, anyway
didn't those countries which opposed the war dispute the WMD case that the US and Britain made? there was a near-consensus on the issue and international law was pretty clear in its demands regarding disarmement.
which countries candidly stated that they believe iraq had no WMD?
I didn't say that 1440 sanctioned military action, just that disarmement had been demanded by multiple UN resolution.
that what you said about reconstruction reminds me of the spoof blue peter sketch where the presenters say 'we've got a good idea, scientists should find cures for all illnesses and thus wipe out all disease......politicians should all make peace and become friends then there would be no more war......farmers should grow more food and give away what they dont need and then there would be no more people dying from hunger."
but i genuinely think in Iraq that the problem was the Americans were not interested in the enormous state building mission that would need to be carried out in post-war Iraq.
I can't prove that with good intentions Iraq would be more peaceful now but ... y'know
predictions/plans will be accurate.
The reason I am harsh is that their predictions/plans for other countries has historically been lamentable. You cannot sit in an office with knowledge of only one culture and plan for other cultures when they are in extreme distress turmoil.
The only example that does the US credit is that of Germany/Japan post WWII but those countries were devestated due to actions of their own making then, the mentality in Germany (capitalist/industrialist) is not that far removed from the US
If we make Iraq a really nice place to live. better than before it will have been worth short term increased strife .......that is really what you are saying......it is unfortunately that naive as well.......just because you have atached 'AN IMPORTANT MAN's name to the idea doesnt make it any less naive
hasn't been a 'nice place to live' for quite a while .. i've said before that i think the standoff with saddam could only have ended in regime change, that when his regime eventually collapsed the country would be in a significantly worse position than it is now.
what do you mean by important man? i don't think what i've said is naive. humanitarian intervention is worth supporting if the people carrying it out keep their obligations, surely?
what on earth makes you believe that the 'nice words/stated intentions' would be followed afterwards? I am accusing you of naivity not monstrousness, whose going to argue with an intention like 'lets go into a country get rid of a nasty regime and then make it better than it is'
it is so obvious that it is not worth saying......they got a 'BIG MAN' to say it (he might have been sincere) but because that helps get the go ahead for doing something that was not widley supported.
there have been successful state building missions in post-conflict countries. the problem is that the americans simply weren't interested in one.
and this is why i opposed the war.
they are guilty of incompetance/ arrogance in the degree that they believe in thei abilities/ and naivity. I look forward to the list of post conflict state building examples, where the US has instigated the change.
Cambodia stands out for me.
instigates the change.
but bosnia springs to mind. essentially, state building is the problem in all of world's conflict zones. true fact.
I thought there was a civil war going on between the ex yugoslav states?
so why create another conflict zone and another state that needs to be built?
because the state that monopolised power in iraq brutalised its own people and was a long term security threat?
sorry, i meant generally.
that is wrong and I would attempt to have changed it, however the west was/is comparitively uninterested in that fact....there was no official censure of sadam for when he gassed the kurds etc.....why because he was relatively stable and benign towards the west, and in our limited western democracies where we only have one blunt vote, economic prospertiy counts for more, than human rights, therefore for as long as Sadam was a force for stability in that region and consequently the wests economic model then the west would certainly tolerate a large amount of internal state brutilization with a state that was benign towards them.
This fact, makes the justification that you 'reward' to the US and UK for their attacking iraq null.......If YOU were to go to was with iraq and you had always complained about his atrocities, then you would be justified in using those atrocities as a reason......the UK and US govenrmnets are not justified in using those atrocitied.
The US and UK could say 'hey look a bonus/upside of the outcome is that we've got rid of a brutal dictator' that is fair wnough, but they cannot use that as a justification for the reason to attack iraq
I should have said in and between
'SADDAM DOES NOT HAVE WMD' because they were waiting for the report of the un inspecters and because everyone in the world is encouraged to believe that the secret services of the US and UK would have more secret inside knowledge than say that of the Australian decret service/government.....
It would be a bad bet for say Norway to counter the rather firm assertions of the US (CIA) that he had WMD when I would imagine that everyone in the world would acknowledge that the Norwegian espionage budget 9for example) would be 1/100th of the US.....its like expecting someone who is shorter than a fence denying absolutely what a person who is taller than the fence can see over it.
i.e. it is a silly argument
but saddam didn't fully comply with weapons inspectors and countries such as france and russia accepted that Iraq had not demonstrated that they had destroyed banned weapons which they had admitted to posessing but were not willing to support the use of force under any circumstances.
didnt really wash with me though....even if he had anthrax or stuff
a) the US has got 'stuff'
b) Saddam was never an anti west fundamentalist, never sought to severely hurt the west, was not a religeous fundamentalist.
c) his Scuds were not exactly effective during the first conflict
d) why did the co-alition destroy the regime the first time, when his crimes were more immediate
a) the US has not annexed neighbouring territories nor does the international community demand it disarm. the disarmement of iraq was a condition of the surrender at the end of the first war
b) That's overstated. Al-Qaradawi was welcomed into Iraq after September 11th, the man who prepared the WTC bomb in 1993 was sheltered by Saddam's government. So was Abu Nidal etc etc.
c) doesn't matter. the international community demanded iraq disarm because it couldn't be trusted with weapons.
d) well, if you think the regime should have destroyed at the end of the first war it doesn't seem consistent to then argue that it shouldn't have been removed in 2003. or is that not what you're arguing?
a) no the US has not annexed neighbouring countries because outside western states have interferred with and redrawn its boarders so that it has a very small seaboard which makes it very vulnerable (as proved in the conflict with Iran)
HOWEVER the US has instigated a military coup in a previously stable Cambodia, ousting its popular (though slightly playboy)prince because he wouldnt join in a war. The US then did bomb and burn rural villages that objected to the unpopular anti rural new incompetant 'US ally', it did then bomb the resistance that formed and grew and grew and through the injustice and maelstrom that in endured was forged into the horror of the khmere rouge that then descended on the country. (2 million estimated dead total in cambodia) The Us then helped rebuilding this by persuading the rest of the world to isolate vietnam (who had pushed the khmere rouge out of phmom peng and much of cambodia and installed a puppet (but a benign puppet) so the country that tried to remove and calm cambodia was hampered by the US the country that had started the mess there.
b) I repeat what I said Saddam was more an ally of the west than the any of the other regimes round there.....of course the west annoyed him but ideologically he was not their enemy. (the point about the fraternising is irrelevant mostly....the US/UK armed and trained the taliban originally.....we will end up chasing our own tails at this rate)
c) why could iraq be less trusted with weopons than other states?, was he unstable cw iran? can many voters be trusted with a vote this is a null point, 'can bush be trusted with the worlds most powerful military capability?' (rhetoric)
d) No No No you have made your biggest mistake with this one.....to make rebuilding have a better chance of working you need goodwill.....during the first conflict most states were 'onside' to some degree or other, even iran and syria, you see these countires did not particularly like sadam and he had after all crossed the border of a muslim state, the guard were on the run the kurds and shia marsh arabs were all ready to rise and take their areas with popular local support, there was a mandate both politically and popularly both internationally and more locally. completely different.
invading because a muslim leader wont show you what hes got in all his buildings when youve been blockading resources to the country and causing suffering for the ordinay people, and the rest of the world is saying 'wait till we have a report.....hes no immediate threat'.
The first conflict was rubbish and inconsequential......it was not a war it was classigffied a conflict....thats a shame if it was a war then the objective would have been to defeat the enemy.....the republican guard and sadam.......who were left intact and undefeated......many conscripts however were killed, the shia uprising was put down bloodily because the allies did not come and support them (slightly like what happened in warsaw in WWII) all of the 'crimes' that sadam committed that were used to justified the less justifiable 2nd conflict, were left unpunished although they were fresher in the memory (kurds gased for example)
the co-allition forces instead has made 'Iraq' as a whole the enemy, witness the blockade on trade aid tha went on for years.....how exactly does that punish sadam? huh? he could have been got rid of the first time...........any general should know you do not give your enemy a chance to go away re-evaluate how they fight you and then try later when the odds are less favourable for you.......why not do it the first time......just because something was right at one time in the past, does not make that thing right for the future, because the situation changed, your argument d) is so so flawed in that kind of logic that I think you should retract that immediately
your hands, you have been outmanoeuvred.
"witness the blockade on trade aid tha went on for years.....how exactly does that punish sadam? huh? "
exactly. removing him was better than containment.
the answer is that things changed between the first gulf conflict and the second, many of the atrocities cited against saddam are those predating the first gulf war, if he was not worth removing then then those could not have been the resons for the US and UK to go in to remove him in the second conflict, there were other reasons. Since it is fairly certain that even the US did not believe that he was culpable for 9/11 and since the wmd thing was uncertain and since although he was still reluctant to give weaopons inspectors full freedom he was still allowing them more access than he previously had, so basically he wasnt totally stonewalling he wasnt acting belligerent, a gnat couldnt have taken off from iraq without the allies shooting it down during the blockade, we know his scuds were crap, we know he's a military organisational man. not an irregular terrorist (irregular terrorists might want to occasionally kill regular militariy organisational non fundamentalist chaps if they are allowed the chance.
No you still have not supplied a
reason as to why the US and UK governments went into iraq.
Saddam a threat...no
Saddam a monster yes....but he always was.
What you have to come up with JJ is a reason that changed the status from there not being a conflict to there being a conflict (unless you think its just that the US and UK finally lost patience with him, which would be odd as other countries hadnt exhausted their patience enough, and anyway that implies an impetuous act)
was the long term alternative?
to that, and it is not hipocritical, as I have said if you (and you had an army) had gone to war to remove saddam) then you would be justified in =using some of those reasons.
The allies are indeed encumbered by their previous governments decisions/ policies, you cannot argue otherwise other states would not countenance that sort of talk in public argument, they would point out it was disengeniious sophistry, it is also a potential argument in favour of non democracies.
absolutely no idea what that means.
and i don't think that it is possible to say that the current US president is responsible for the appalling human rights abuses during the cold war.
head when I said it, im typing at work....i=ts not easy....thats why we should have had a pint
a) the US is not a monarchy. you can't blame George W. Bush for the crimes of previous presidents.
b) again, Bush didn't arm the Taliban and that was an appalling action taken to further US interests in the cold war. But I don't see why you insist on judging everything the US has ever done together rather than seeing them as the result of decisions taken by individuals.
c) "why could iraq be less trusted with weopons than other states?"
is this a serious question? does the word Halabja mean anything to you? Or Khuzistan?
d) is it really Bush Jnr's fault that his dad was so amoral he was happy to leave Saddam in power? And I didn't support the war and I would have let inspections continue alongside the threat of force if it was necessary. But France and Russia both said they would veto any UN resolution authorising the use of force under absolutely any circumstances.
Why? Because they wanted to rehabilitate Saddam's government as a good international citizen, be paid back for the weapons they sold him and exploit the fact that TotalFinaElf and Lukoil had first call on Iraq's oil.
I agree that it was appalling that Bush Snr's government allowed Saddam to crush the Shia uprising but his son is not culpable for that. Furthermore, I kinda think that the support the US offered Saddam in the past morally necessitated his eventual removal from power. Was it wrong of the British government to try to stop the slave trade because they had once traded in slaves?
My assessment of all of this will be based on outcomes, however. And the recklessness of the current US government and its non-commitment to post-war reconstruction destroyed any prospect of a positive outcome.
your c) the allies government barely give a monkeys about Halabja, yes they have to make noises that they do, every cynical government has to, although they are weighing up 'bigger' pictures with larger numbers of peoples fates at stake. As I have stated 3 times before, the US was still freinds with Saddam despite Halabja because this is merely an 'annecdotal' event of crowd control in their 'big picture' he was not oficially criticised when it happened because he was an ally, the resaon it would be tolerated is because they probably understood why he had done it, in britains colonial history to maintain central control of unruly areas unfeeling rulers have sen the need to be totally off the wall brutal with the 'savages' the UK and US could probably understand where he was coming from, whilst no dounbt regretting that he was so 'unreconstructed' and extreme. the US and UK did not mistrust him because of halabja, they would have regretted his methods but they would have found his actions rather methodical and not surprising (although the extremeness may have surprised, surprise soon changed to an 'oh well i guess life is more brutal there' 'if he didnt use those extreme methods perhaps he would be ousted, and heaven knows we might get an anti west fundamentalist then, so I suppose we shouldnt criticise his day to day methods'
luxory of halbja's horror as an excuse (Of course there will be reasons/decisions that tipped the balance to go to conflict but the resons discussed will not be the ones you are, except in the context of what they think will be discussed by their chatering classes
I would take this literally and say 'dont be ridiculous you cant blame the queen'
However......where can i start with this one......very very difficult, this is just such a huge huge subject one worthy of a complete thread as it strikes home at a fundemental of democracy and its excuses/excusors/detractors
I will not go into that, Ill just do a gain say
and say that successive continuous governments are far more culpable and should be accountable far more than numerous innocent civillians who have been terrorisd by the policy pursued in this region, why were any of these held accountable for a dictators crimes when they could not vote for an alternative.....oh they werent held accountable but they were punished.
CW the us government of today......well they agreed to uphold and continue some past policies they are also privy to the real reasons that the first conflict was not followed through, instead they are instigating their own fudges and cover ups......you say they should not be held accountable.....well then thats nice for them cos they can influence things/they can cock things up/ you wont hold them accountable to things they do and they wont be punished for it.
This was not the real correct counter to your a) as I said that would be far too big for now, but my counter to your counter is easily justification enough for many many people to think they should be held accountable.
basis do you lump together actions taken by different presidents?
of civil service of military advisors of CIA advice of joining 'clubs of knowledge' .....you are only viewing this aspect internally from the point of view of being freindly to western democracy, suppose you were an ambivalent non decided non european, how would they regard the idea of non culpability?
Is there a thourough spring clean after governments change over? I imagine not, also you seem to be forgetting that the Bushes are actually related, to the rest of the world that looks slightly dynastic (Please dont make me explain that the US should know how it looks to the rest of the world it has a plague of advisers on every subject under the sun)
I had failed to mention or name or criticise a single western politician, I kept it generic I said US UK I never said blair government or bush government.
You are the one who has disected.....I am criticiseing the UK/US policy attitude, this includes the vote in these countires the attitudes towards foreigners and to things they dont understand. it is bigger than just one government although governemnts are meant to steer the huge unresponsive ship as well they can...........I just dont think they have steered well at all, I think they are rubbish
Yes some of the wrong decisions were made by individuals, although there are many others in administrations that can counter these decisions and reason, the problem is your argument here would take away any accountability ever for any government until its term is up, you see the administrations have no come out and said oh yes in this case it was 'Mr Such and such's fault' no they stand to gether because at that level they are all powerful people who are linked with other powerful people arounfd them, so your saying I cant blame a government because it may have been an individuals fault......hang on dont we live in democracies? where supposedly one person cannot make horendous aggressive decisions like a dictator can?
Can you tell me of any individual decision makers who have been identified by the US admin who have been at fault and been partially responsible for any cock ups?
George bush Jnr has in any way criticisd/condemed George Bush snrs policies or actions in any way, it is very generous that you should suggest that jnr might secretly dislike snrs approach.......what a shame then that jnr is such a coward that for the sake of helping the cause of inernational relations and helping world peace and religeous divide that he would not criticise snr......will you apologise for him for that too?
US president, on taking office, apologise for their country's past crimes?
but there is no point in so doing if they are to continue the imperialistic policies of their predecessors.
creakyknees has said that the iraq war couldn't possibly be morally justifiable because the vietnam war wasn't morally justifiable. i don't see how that makes sense.
in what way is the iraq war 'imperialistic'? oil again? do you actually know anything about oil?
'in what way is the iraq war imperialistic'? that is a ludicrous question.
(clearly, oil isnt a prerequisite for imperialism.)
tariq ali explains it better than i ever could.
does appear to argue that the iraq war was in america's ECONOMIC interests because of its OIL .... i don't see how that can be true.
Saddam is an individual and America is a country. Is it so difficult to understand the implications of tha?
wilfully obtuse. bush jnr must be insincere because previous american presidents have issue instructions to do things which we would all condemn?
that just doesn't make any sense.
"If George Bush doesn't speak out against past atrocities he is condoning them."
absolute utter bullshit.
surely he is just recognising that they are nothing to do with him?
In the same way I wouldn't apologise for slavery, as I was not involved.
apologised for the crusades though.
I feel clean....I think the way I purged myself of any residual guilt was to realise that had I lived 4/500 years ago I would probably have been burnt as a witch, by the oppressive forces that i now rail against.....hence I do not feel the WASP burden of guilt about what has happened
junior could influence senior....or at the very least he probably might not be president had senior not been president or into politics.....so it is not easy for him to distance, your comparison is inappropriate
I did not even mention the vietnam war in this thread.
IT WAS YOU THAT said that the US had a history of successful intervention and rebuilt states.
I then replied 'I look forward to the list of examples.......perhaps Cambodia' you then replied Bosnia.
A little later you mentioned that the US does not annex neighbours, to which I countered with 'I agree, but they do......blah blah blah and gave the example of the US instigating a military coup in Cambodia (A country at peace up till then) because they would not aid the US in the war against the Vietnamese, I then mentioned the US extreme bombing of cambodian detractors of the crap incompetant coup replacement leader, and how this extreme death from the skies turned rural cambodian resistance to the coup into the ravenning Khmer rouge (with guidance from a student from paris....pol pot) I then mentioned that after the vietnam had removed the khmere rouge from power in cambodia, the US 'helped' with the rebuilding of cambodia by embargoing war ravished knackered vietnam (who had in the previous couple of decades a war with ....the french, the US/civil was?, the khmere rouge and the chinese, as you can imagine their country was a bit knackered without many resources to actually rebuild/repair their own country let alone cambodia. i did not mention the vietnam was at all except obliquely in its relation to Cambodia.
"US had a history of successful intervention and rebuilt states."
i didn't. i said that there had been sucessful state building projects in the past.
was imperialistic at all I never said that, I also do not think that I mentioned the word OIL ar all, are you adding bits of my arguments to arguments you have had with other people, I think that the thread has got a bit big and that is why we are knocking heads I never brought up OIL/Imperialist reasons for us to fight in iraq/ the vietnam war/ I only mentioned CAMBODIA as history with regard to us policy because you had brought up US being successful historically.......Im afraid the ghost of past countless OTHER arguments are echoing around inside your head
"I dont think I mentioned that the Iraq CONFLICT (not war)
was imperialistic at all I never said that, I also do not think that I mentioned the word OIL"
Dagnammit did. The board is screwing things up
'imperialist' i THINK WE SHOULD TELL ON HIM
pain for someone they never elected crimes?
should they take the pain when we prop up illegitemate and violent dictators?
its just a question of who is inflicting the pain, who aids it, who turns a blind eye.......luckily that was never me nor anyone I could influence, plus I will come clean and tell the truth about stuff.
a) influence senior
b) denounce some of seniors doings
c) do things competantly make the iraq thing smoother by not taking a bullish international stance.
d) not start something he couldnt finish.
e) learn from past mistakes and historical common US common misconceptions of their own competance or motives of all his advisors
If it helps.....I mean it gives you a clean sheet. it helps establish that your country should be taken at face value, it shows where you are coming from. It may aid some dimplomatic discussions.....other countries leaders also have to appease factions within their own state, apologies like this make it easier for them to come to agreement with the US president
how are they linked across history?
and state rebuilding, I merely countered your 'US historical success' with 'US historical failure'
genes/ family upbringing/ intorduction into politics no doubt/ much debate/ much dialogue of freindly and intimate nature/ by the fact that there has been continuity of government in their country, there has been overlap of government advisors/cia/military.....continuance of flag as shown to the rest of the world of uniforms as shown to the world, of weopons (and the developement thereof) of election issues (although evolved) of ingrained national predjudices, sometimes the outward aspect and dealing of the country to others may seem consistant. the dollar, US firms, the US resistance to many global initiatives that other democracies are not (emmissions quotas etc) the list is fairly long actually)
who was president at the time of halabja?
like 1988 or 1989?
how do you know that?
I mean, if was intentional then Dr Kelly wouldn't have felt so bad about talking to the BBC that he suicided himself
PROVE that something is worth supporting. i just think, as i've said on numerous times before, that the failures after the war are criminal and that the actual act of regime change is not. the stand off with saddam, as far as i can see it, could only end in eventual regime change and i don't recall many opponents of the war coming up with alternatives to containment and all the suffering that entailed.
i think that removing governments that systematically abuse their own people, invade neighbouring territories and commit genocide are worth removing if you replace them with something better.
there are only a handful of states that can really compare to iraq in terms of its brutality and none of them were in a position where non-compliance with multiply affirmed UN resolutions could result in the application of external force.
it may be the case that iraq WAS behaving when there was a large UN presence in the country but unless you wanted to contain Saddam with sanctions and no-fly zones forever, what was the alternative to regime change? Would you be happy to have removed the international presence from that country on the off-chance that he might try again to pursue WMD?
1) the insurgency hasn't JUST targetted the coalition troops. it hasn't even PRIMARILY targetted coalition troops. the insurgency is not a result of anger at the 'illegal' nature of the invasion. it's the result of a competitive market in law and order. what matters is that the CPA failed to force the market in law + order from a competitive to a monopoly equilibrium.
2) can you define what you mean by containment? would you have supported continuing with the sanctions?
but surely we are no better than Saddam if we are resorting to capital punishment?
theres still a world of difference, what you have just said is a soundbite, unmodified by your judgement
Oil come over there and sort you out.
and there's a huge Gulf between my puns and yours.
I'm going to (Gaza)Strip now.
Who's brave enough?
but I'm scared they'll want to TaliBAN me!!!!
I don't think he's taking this threat Syriasly
Well, I'm still here and Amman am I laughing at you guys.
Of course I doha-ven't. You're going to be Petra-fied when I finish.
and Karkuk some dinner but not before I've Buraydah you with some serious pun action.
you're a novice, you mecca good adversary.
to have all the answers either. that's why i was asking. i am genuinely you interested and there's no need to get personal
lets go get mugabe, kim il II, china, sudan and israel, tomorrow. (facetious I know).
I agree the regime change on the whole is a positive thing. Still don't like any regime that supports capital punishment though. And hate it when we condone it.
we haven't condoned capital punishment. and i appreciate that iraq wasn't the only country in the world to abuse human rights but there were few who could compare in scale. saddam violated the genocide convention, for fuck's sake. and violation of the genocide convention allows regime change.
what I'm reading!
I am CEO for Halliburton.
might watch it
I've now decided I'm never going to work for the sun, no matter what.
USA in international relations being a bit shit and a bit cunty shock. Tony Blair in well George, we don't really agree with you in principal but we'll go along with whatever you say shock.
If it is on TV though I might watch it. They loved hanging back in the day, must be something in it. Maybe they'll start bear baiting and, er, jousting in Iraq.
JJ and fullerov, is that you are being apologists for someone you have never met, Junior does not apologise for senior.
You are only arguing in insular ways, your argument would be laughed at if you tried this tack in another ambivalent country, can you not se that there woyuld be an international perception that the bush's are linked, or similar or influenced, just cos you two can understand the subtle differences and nuances in US politics does not mean that is considered by much of the world, to much of the world the US is a bulldozer and appears consistant in its approach, this is the US's problem why people dont aquiesce and roll over and let america do the right thing for them in their countries, for heavens sake of course Junior should apologise.......its called diplomacy.....its also called courtesy.....you know the time of US government changeovers, that the bushes are subtly different......the rest of the world doesnt all know that.......do you know when the last malaysian changeover happened? Bush could introduce some humility and diplomacy and gain from the good will that would generate abroad but he hasnt and its too late now
Bush and Rumsfeld have screwed this up and they should be held accountable by the electorate.
the war was lost in mid 2004.
Upto then I think Iraq could have been brought around....
People would be boring if they agreed on everything.
for the US government. Nor am I trying to defend George Bush. I hate the bastard and there is no way i'd vote for him if i lived in the US.
I just have a more specific set of criticisms of US policy in Iraq and am less critical of the US generally than people on here are.
anything that contravenes international law?
about international law?
in practice, i mean. not in principle.
you'd oppose a unilateral intervention in Sudan?
is a unilateral intervention in Sudan likely to achieve anything? Peacekeeping maybe, but are you talking about regime change?
over the past year. Or got a job in which I need to work a bit.
If not I would so have joined in this wonderful discussion, especially as I don't agree with anybody. Maybe when I get home.
If I set an example will you follow my lead?
chase me........I mean more like be bing a leader and you all follow me to a glorious revolution
Killing Joke - follow the leader
Joy dIVISION lEADERS OF MEN
its cos I is old and wrinkled isnt it? even tho fullerov is 'from the other side' politically he's young and nice looking, youd rather interact with him......I ....understand
do you think you could catch me?
JJ - your ability to puncture holes in other people's lazy arguments is admirable. As is your grasp of the facts, level headedness and logic. A couple of points though.
The idea that the Iraq war was to a large extent an imperialist project - difficult to deny, surely? The large scale looting of the Iraqi economy by the CPA may not have been a deliberate ‘top down’ policy, but the imposition of fundamental economic conditions by the US before the election of an Iraqi government clearly was. The point is that democracy and governance in Iraq can never be anything other than a foreign project if imposed from without. The whole idea that the each ethnic group had to have its own representatives and that each needed to be represented as part of some kind of giant affirmative action programme is surely fundamentally anti-democratic?
Yes the 'all about oil' argument is a weak one, but surely safe access to resources was inescapably of some concern in this conflict? More in the sense that it was about shaking up the balance of power in the Middle East – ideally creating another potential ‘client’ open to American interests, but one in which at least has the potential (however fanciful this idea might be) to attract support from other states and encourage regime change or a transition towards ‘democracy’. For ‘democracy’, read neo-liberal market economy, or a world in which powerful countries are able to pursue their economic interests without the threat of totalitarian/religious autocrats confusing the issue.
Do you genuinely believe that forcible regime change by a foreign power EVER has the potential to bring about stability, especially in an essentially artificial country split along ethno-religious/tribal lines? Granted it might just about come off in a miniscule place like East Timor, or in a country which already has some democratic tradition. But Afghanistan or Iraq? The whole idea that invading either would bring about anything other than chaos was then and still is an absolute joke.
I dont think I was arguing lazily, Ill have you know I put a lot of effort into writing all those words, my fingertips are now sore
and so was fullerov.
my points looked awful written down, but sounded ground shakingly devastating in my head.
I missed almost all of the debate today!!!
I think you'll find.......if you hold them alongside each other mine is definately longer
the two shining examples for 'Regime Change'
both coherent entities, that either had a lengthy democratic tradition or were not riven by deep ethnic or religious divides.
There was arguably more reason to favour it in Iraq.
And Regime Change was only really a secondary consideration in Afghanistan
this thread has now got so fragmented it is dificult to see what is a reply to what........I love this sites format, perhaps the only additional aid to reading long threads would be column lines down the left hand side so we can trace up and down
thats very nice of you plus unexpec.......Oh you were talking to chiaroscuro
I can just imagine your exasperated sighing of ''Oh GOD, fullerov...''
it just made me lol
exactly how I said it (mentally)