Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
would you watch it?
(this isn't a link to the footage btw)
did, curiosity got the better of me. :-/
it was from another post on here. http://www.drownedinsound.com/articles/1450397...here is is...
think the Mitchell brothers carried out the task, by the looks of those leather jackets.
But well done for hanging him. He will now be known as a martyr. Great thinking.
but I think it is the one argument that holds no ground. What you need to understand is that the only Iraqis that still supported Saddam were in Tikrit and the surrounding areas as well as those that were illegally moved into Kurdistan to further the ethnic cleansing there. To them he was a hero and any move against him equates to the worlds greatest crime. So to oust him from power and arrest him already made him a martyr to the only people that would ever see him as a martyr. To these people he would have the same degree of martyrdom whether he was in jail or dead and he would only lose this status if freed and once again allowed to rule Iraq. You don't have to be dead to be a martyr and he will gain no new supporters now that he is dead so people can throw the world martyr around as much as they want but it doesn't really mean anything.
theres MUCH more humiliating ways to die.
and if they really hung him before he finished praying.
sadly it is true. blood on our hands.
I accept no responsibility.
I just heard echoing noises and then his head moving very quickly. It was pointless anyway and nothing I'd try to see again.
means there is blood on our hands?
We should never have allowed him to be hung. Especially before he was even tried on half the charges against the kurds. And the way they treated him during the hanging is going to martyr him; as is leaving him to lie in state...what the fuck? Criminals don't lie in state. This whole thing reeks of bad handling.
this has been discussed on numerous occasions on here already but i do have 2 concerns:
1) There is no point in performing eleborate moral calculations in trying to assess whether or not he 'deserves' the death penalty.' What matters is the impact it will have on the political situation in Iraq and, obviously, the violence is likely to get worse.
2) Any state which aspires to a liberal jurisprudence, as presumably the new Iraq does, shouldn't under any circumstances have the option of using the death penalty.
the prayer is one line long, i thought that was quite poetic. he is such a martyr, i love him
i am being sarcastic.
an absolute cunt
i think his hanging was wrong and videoing it on mobiles was very wrong.
i assume that it will be whitewashed when it is reported on.
it should be rememered that the first thing the iraqi government did, was remove the death penalty.
I guess if it was it would have been better filmed, though.
You can't see anything.
still, an increase in violence is a good excuse for Bushco to send 20odd thousand more troops over there
did I mention that the manufacture of arms accounts for 18% of the US GDP?
guess who's polishing their veto for the forthcoming UN arms treaty ...
and the 'war on terror' marches on
you don't honestly think complete withdrawal is advisable, do you?
I don't know what the answer is
Bushco before the war crimes tribunal?
it's a long running exercise in denying any nationalist Arab states existing in peace to exploit their own mineral resources
what can you do? - oh I know, let's kill people who kill people to show that killing is wrong
i just think that complete withdrawal would allow iraqis to butcher one another unfettered and i don't see why you'd regard this as a good thing..
as Bush is commander in cheif and all that
murder of Iraqi civilians, torture/murder of prisoners of war etc etc
there's still this little thingy hanging over from Gulf War I
that there has been wilful murder of civilians then you'd have a case. some war crimes have been committed by americans in iraq (abu ghraib etc) but it's really not clear that you could indict the president for them unless you could demonstrate that he ordered them, surely?
as for Ramsey Clark .... pfffft.
falsifying evidence (WMD satellite photos) before the UN in order for them to pass a resolution authorising force
is this not a crime against peace under the Nuremberg Tribunal Principles 1950
It also goes against Article 2 and Article 33 of the UN charter
powell presented them in bad faith which i can't imagien could be done.
either way, none of this addresses the problem of iraq's future....
rather than a conviction - innocent until proven guilty and all that
as for Iraq's future? safe in the hands of American troops no doubt...
can you offer anything other than a glib remark? do you think there will be less bloodshed if the US troops withdraw?
in the long term probably less bloodshed - yes
but to be honest we're far past the point of any useful input and definitely into the glib zone
the pretexts for this war were fabricated and the US brand of world justice is a mother hen sitting on her infinite supply of terrorist eggs and nursing her hatchlings for an infinite war
probably be less bloodshed in the long term?
i half agree with your last sentence, if i understand the metaphor properly.
American troops in Iraq aren't able to keep the peace at the moment and if there is an increase in troops it would only serve to keep the peace in a police state
I'm not close to the sentiment on the ground but I can't imagine that the Iraqi civilian population are feeling any more secure now than they have been for the last 20 years - but I don't imagine for a moment that the US military or administration give much of a fig for the Iraqi people.
Let's be honest, this is and has always been about oil and strategic positioning of US forces - it has been a committed foreign policy of the US to disrupt the stability of oil rich nations in the middle east, asia, latin and south america and africa since at least the end of the 60s - that is of course unless said countries adopt puppet regimes or heavily invest in american infrastructure to mine their natural deposits or american banks to manage their money and investment portfolios
It's the sad state of the world we live in - past, present and future - with no end in sight
the new world order is really the old world order ie colonialism for the benefit of the very few while most of us in the western world get the crumbs that drop from the table without really any idea of what's being carved up above our heads
millions of people marched against this war and they were all ignored
"this is and has always been about oil and strategic positioning of US forces"
i accept that the motivation is primarily geostrategic but i think it's about security rather than resources. we've discussed why i don't think oil was a motivating factor in this war before so i won't restate my position.
i don't see why you think a war shouldn't go ahead simply because the public oppose it, however. the anti-war protest was just a mass wave of public sympathy. i become much more sympathetic to the pro-war position after attending the anti-war rally in Febuary 2003 when i saw some of the nasty fascists i was sharing public space with,
that your stance regarding the war was governed less by your prevailing sense of right or wrong or notions of humanism and justice and more by your not wanting to be associated with certain types of people
that's a sad thing to admit to
although there were plenty of people on the march who were only there because they wanted to avoid association with the American government, which is a slight variant on what you're accusing me of.
i was still opposed to the war but i didn't want anyone to think that my presence on that march meant i was on the same side as Tony Benn or George Galloway.
so what? millions more obviously didn't care enough to march - in fact, probably a majority.
If you're peddling freedom and democracy you obviously discredit your position by manipulating the media and ignoring the voices of the public - not to mention (in the case of the UK) the voices of ones own democratically elected colleagues
based on what evidence?
was it a free vote? I mean really a free vote?
did Parliament know what it was signing up for?
this is where I go
"I mean really a free vote?"
well, what does that even mean? and you did say in your earlier post that the UK govt. ignored the voices of democratically elected representatives - which obviously isn't true,
most of the people who marched in London knew nothing about the war or why they opposed it, so why should i afford them greater credibility?
means undirected by their party or their whips
party whips asked MPs to vote on Iraq?
a minority voice. lots of minority voices are ignored.
you consider the secret services and vested interests in Washington, London and elsewhere to be majority voices?
but not as much as the skull & bones, you understand.
the anti-war movement is things like this. the war has happened, you cannot make in unhappen. bleating about america lying and the 'justification' for the war is bloody irrelevent now, what matters is how to stabilise iraq.
and i don't think pulling troops out is any sort of answer to that. the only thing that stops them butchering each other at the moment is a common enemy. the americans pull out, and it'll end up like afghanistahn after the soviet withdrawal.
hence my glib resignation
however, the war isn't over - it is still happening
people are dying every day - a war doesn't end until the peace is secured
US imposing a Saddam-lite government if it reduced the number of deaths?
i'm just trying to get to the bottom of your thinking, here.
the bottom of my thinking is that US 'national security' and 'world stability' are mutually exclusive
Operation Enduring Freedom was and is a scam but somehow the US military seem to have a limitless supply of young men and women willing to throw themselves on the fire to defend their flag. The war economy is in integral and irreversible part of the US groupthink. It is in America's national security interest to expend old ammunition and develop and export more and more - without it their economy might fail.
And all the time, like those young men and women, the world over buys into their hypocritical moralising and their shiny trinkets
the Iraq situation is merely a tiny part of a broad offensive which, left unchecked, will consume us all
that's my thinking
"the Iraq situation is merely a tiny part of a broad offensive which, left unchecked, will consume us all"
what does that mean?
a nuclear war between Iran and Israel in 2018 if you like
or perhaps a one world government by 2046
fit in as being part of America's 'broad offensive'?
this isn't clear to me at all, i'm afraid.
I have other things to do ...
but don't consider that a counter argument.
but stability can only be guaranteed by sending 200,000-300,000 more troops. I'm with Zbigniew Brzezinski on this one.
are currently 483,000 troops in the coalition. Based on the troop-civilian ratio identified in the counterinsurgency "manual" published by the US Army they'd need 535,000 to 670,000.
i'd have thought it would be possible to send an extra 50-60k
to protect civilians instead of trying to kill insurgents. oil spot theory etc etc.
politically, there's no way either Britain or America are going to send more troops, even as "small" a number as 60,000. I don't think they can even do it purely in military terms, as they've sunk most fresh troops into Afghanistan, which looks to become an even more indefinite disaster area.
Secondly, sending more troops isn't a solution to anything. Do you think the insurgents will say "look chaps, 50,000 more troops, and it looks like they're building bridges with the civilian population instead of trying to root out our lot, guess we'd better call it a day?" It's the kind of short term Sun solution that got us into this mess in the first place.
implausible and it's absurd recklessness that has allowed the US to have 2 major commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time.
as for your second point, i do think the most important aspect of counterinsurgency is the winning of popular support but which, whilst it might be impossible now, wasn't back in 2003. I don't think it's a short term solution, i think for it to have had any success it would have been a generational thing. But the US were never interested in living up to their responsibilities in post-war Iraq.
the oil spot theory is explained in detail here:
I agree with that. I think that the scrapping of almost all existing Iraqi infrastructure was probably the largest mistake the West made in the short term, and they've been entirely out of ideas since.
wholly unable to deal with counterinsurgency. So by proxy, what use is their handbook? Also, this isn't a counterinsurgency now, more a civil war. We need peacekeepers, en masse. And so 300,000 more troops would manage to perhaps achieve a degree of stability, with casualties. Bush and his advisers are a closed circle out of ideas, and afraid to lose more troops. He's got himself into this, he damn well has to get himself out, if he genuinely means to save iraq. That means more troops, and more bodybags. Vietnam has proved the US can't stomach casualties, but can Bush reverse that?
"The US army has proved itself wholly unable to deal with counterinsurgency"
i disagree. i think that Rumsfeld has proved himself unable to understand counterinsurgency, which is different. the counterinsurgency manual is actually a recent publication which i read about last week. go me.
would you hang a drug user and let the known dealers live in luxury?
I was quite suprised by the amount of people who were into this.
"would you hang a drug user and let the known dealers live in luxury?"
that's a poor metaphor, surely?
who committed crimes against humanity, and let those who sold him the tools, indirectly helped him gain power, protected and supported him for years, then failed to remove him when they had the chance live in luxury?
I have watched the footage actually. Can't not look at a car crash and all that. You don't really see anything of note anyway, plenty of scope for the conspiracy theorists on this one.
was guilty of propping up Saddam's dictatorship. It might be a great deal nicer to pretend it was all the fault of the Americans but it wasn't.
i should have said criminaly active addict (he is a criminal for doing illegal drugs anyway but lets just say he steals and eats babys for kicks too)
I wouldn`t hang drug users. what would all the shareholders and doctors do for money!! god bless africa! anyway
that was a weak and poorly constructed metaphor, i am sorry, i got worked up and couldn`t be bothered to sit around and think how i could look big and clever so i just said it
just quote one of Godel's incompleteness theorems. EASY.
Godel's incompleteness theorems, please explain them?
that any adequate axiomatizable theory is incomplete. In particular the sentence "This sentence is not provable" is true but not provable in the theory.
An open letter to the Prime Minister of Iraq, Nouri al-Malaki…
You had the live body of Saddam Hussein, and that was all you needed. You could have walled the murdering bastard up in a small compound with Big Brother House cameras, and paid for the former president’s board, lodging and security by charging voyeurs for the privilege of observing him in his ignominy. Instead you found it expedient to snap his neck, and possibly violate your country’s constitution in the process.
In my humble opinion, you can take your barbaric and grotesque death spectacle, and shove it up your arse.
(Dr) Francis Sedgemore
the US actually wants to pull out of Iraq?