Saddam's execution

[M. Porcius Cato]

I strongly doubt that Saddam will be widely viewed as a martyr by most Moslems. The Iranians, Saudis, Kuwaitis, and Kurds were certainly no fans of Saddam, who was always viewed as an Arab nationalist more than any kind of pan-Islamic leader (pretenses to the contrary notwithstanding).

 

Also, maybe Saddam should have been executed after standing trial for still more of his atrocities, but apparently the Iraqis have chosen to put him on trial posthumously for his many outstanding misdeeds. Surely one can appreciate their reasoning here: why on earth should Saddam's life be prolonged only in proportion to his crimes?

 

The only legitimate criticism I can see of this execution is that Iraqi law forbids executions during religious holidays, and there is apparently a Sunni-Shi'ite disagreement about whether today is or is not a holiday. By executing Saddam today, the government of Iraq has implicitly taken a position on a strictly sectarian issue, which is an ominous sign. However, ultimately whether Saddam was executed this morning, yesterday morning, or tomorrow morning makes no difference to his willing Sunni accomplices, who would prefer that Saddam be executed on no morning whatever. Thus, the criticism of the timing of the execution is simply a proxy fight for a larger cause--the continuing dominance of the Sunni minority--that has absolutely no legitimacy whatever.

 

Personally, I'm glad the bastard is dead. Sic semper tyrannis.

Edited December 30, 2006 by M. Porcius Cato

[Gaius Octavius]

In reality, Saddam was a 'bastard' at conception. He did earn the title, on his own account, in later life.

 

Anyway, I don't think that he is dead. Note that they had something wrapped around his neck. They had one of his numerous look-alikes stand in for him and take the fall (so to speak). He's probably having a late supper with the Carlyle Group as I write. Might come in handy one day in the future. It's all a conspiracy.

 

 

[Horatius]

By executing Saddam today, the government of Iraq has implicitly taken a position on a strictly sectarian issue, which is an ominous sign.

You are quite right here but no surprise the Maliki 'Government' is controlled to a large extent by Muqtada al-Sadr, and the Mahdi Army and Hadi Al-Amiri's Badr Brigades . While the militia death squads may look like justice to some it just looks like ethnic cleansing to me.I guess the tyranny of the majority is more 'legitimate' but it is still tyranny. I see no solution but partition now. What is strange is the U.S. is propping up the pro-Iranian anti-secularist faction. Many of them implacably hostile to the U.S. .That can not turn out well. I can't see there ever being a secular Iraq again. I don't think there is any light at the end of this tunnel.

[M. Porcius Cato]

You are quite right here but no surprise the Maliki 'Government' is controlled to a large extent by Muqtada al-Sadr, and the Mahdi Army and Hadi Al-Amiri's Badr Brigades .

Not any more. Maliki and al-Sadr (thankfully) split, in no small part due to Washington and Sistani.

 

What is strange is the U.S. is propping up the pro-Iranian anti-secularist faction. Many of them implacably hostile to the U.S. .That can not turn out well. I can't see there ever being a secular Iraq again. I don't think there is any light at the end of this tunnel.

 

The US is propping up the Iraqi government with no contingencies about whether the Iraqi government is, will be, or has been secular. Clearly, it would be nice if the Shi'ites and Kurds were all Jeffersonians (or Lockeans, if you prefer), but that's not an issue that any military could ever decide. There are a number of secular leaders in Iraq, including the Kurdish president Talabani, so it's not impossible for Iraq to have a secular future. The nice thing about democracy is that voters tend to punish failing governments, regardless of their pieties.

[Moonlapse]

How many Iraqis did US-supported Saddam kill with US-supplied WMD? How many Iraqis died due to US-backed sanctions? How many Iraqis have died in the aftermath of the US invasion? I think that everything about this situation is so incredibly f**ked that I can't even see what is right about anything. Seeing that footage all over the television is sickening to me.

[Virgil61]

How many Iraqis did US-supported Saddam kill with US-supplied WMD? How many Iraqis died due to US-backed sanctions?

 

Taken out of context it just brings a distorted view of what really happened. The US and most of Europe, as well as most of the Arab states had a vested interest in keeping the radical regime of Komenhi from defeating and occupying Iraq. It's not brain surgery; the Cold War wasn't over yet, Russians were in Afghanistan, whatever Saddam's inclinations at the time he at least provided oil to the West.

 

We were stuck with supporting a radical anti-Western Iran or Iraq. It was an awful choice but one that needed to be made. It may have been ugly, but given the situation sometimes realpolitik is preferable to singing kumbaya-in-a-circle foreign policy.

 

Sanctions took place AFTER the Iraq invasion of Kuwait. The main reason Iraqis died is the allocation of resources that Saddam put in place that deprived his own people and his failure to follow the UN guidelines following the Gulf War.

 

How many Iraqis have died in the aftermath of the US invasion? I think that everything about this situation is so incredibly f**ked that I can't even see what is right about anything. Seeing that footage all over the television is sickening to me.

 

War sucks, people die, what does anyone expect? More Iraqis have died killing each other than anything the US/UK has done.

 

The invasion was stupid, the occupation even worse. I won't even begin to defend the first and I'm very critical of how the second was conducted, having first-hand experience on both. On the other hand what I saw on the ground there and on TV here were often drastically different. Most of Iraq is and was fairly peaceful. Shia areas of the mid and south of the country are usually safe-routes for US troops. The Kurdish north is almost violence free.

 

It's the Sunni Triangle that most of the combat and deaths are occurring vis-a-vis the US troops. They're Sunni, as was Saddam. They bullied, jailed, killed and pummeled Shias and Kurds for thirty years and received the benefits. Now they're at the bottom of the pile and they're ticked off. I have little sympathy for them.

 

I do have sympathy for the Shia and Kurds although their penchant for revenge and vengeance has led them to a civil war, one that I contend would have occurred anyway in the next generation. The Sunni are reaping what they sowed, the US invasion was the catalyst but some sort of catalyst was bound to happen sooner or later.

[Moonlapse]

How many Iraqis did US-supported Saddam kill with US-supplied WMD? How many Iraqis died due to US-backed sanctions?

 

Taken out of context it just brings a distorted view of what really happened. The US and most of Europe, as well as most of the Arab states had a vested interest in keeping the radical regime of Komenhi from defeating and occupying Iraq. It's not brain surgery; the Cold War wasn't over yet, Russians were in Afghanistan, whatever Saddam's inclinations at the time he at least provided oil to the West.

Iraq invaded Iran and used US chemical weapons against them. That entire scenario can be traced directly to the CIA and its activities in regime change in both Iraq and Iran. I'm sure you understand the origins of Islamic radicalism. Iraq, by its natural cultural aspects, should never have been a unified country.

We were stuck with supporting a radical anti-Western Iran or Iraq. It was an awful choice but one that needed to be made. It may have been ugly, but given the situation sometimes realpolitik is preferable to singing kumbaya-in-a-circle foreign policy.

So previous mistakes justify further mistakes?

Sanctions took place AFTER the Iraq invasion of Kuwait. The main reason Iraqis died is the allocation of resources that Saddam put in place that deprived his own people and his failure to follow the UN guidelines following the Gulf War.

What was the intended purpose of the sanctions, and what was the actual outcome? The only effect sanctions had were to consolidate Saddam's power while taking a horrible toll on the population. Can you dispute this? This is another mistake supposedly justified by previous mistakes.

How many Iraqis have died in the aftermath of the US invasion? I think that everything about this situation is so incredibly f**ked that I can't even see what is right about anything. Seeing that footage all over the television is sickening to me.

War sucks, people die, what does anyone expect? More Iraqis have died killing each other than anything the US/UK has done.

Those Iraqi deaths have everything to do with the actions of the US/UK, or rather politicians who feel that their decisions are best despite any democratic consensus. What I expect is for my country to quit ensuring its own demise. Find all the videos that you can that show people being horribly killed as a result of this interference with matters half way around the globe and then say, "War sucks, people die, what does anyone expect?"

[Virgil61]

Iraq invaded Iran and used US chemical weapons against them. That entire scenario can be traced directly to the CIA and its activities in regime change in both Iraq and Iran. I'm sure you understand the origins of Islamic radicalism. Iraq, by its natural cultural aspects, should never have been a unified country.

 

Your logic stops at the CIA. Why stop there? Taken further to its natural conclusion it was part of the Cold War and part of the larger struggle against the Soviets. Why not blame it on the Soviets, killing tens of millions of their own and other Europeans; they weren't poster boys for enlightenment.

 

I understand Islamic radicalism. Western empire building and thirty years of CIA involvement doesn't justify strapping a bomb to one's back and killing hundreds. It's based on ignorance, anti-rational thought, a backward culture, oppression of anyone not Muslim and a great deal of inferiority and anger at that inferiority towards the West. Unlike the West, Islamic countries haven't had a period of enlightenment or undergone a secularization of religion.

 

What was the intended purpose of the sanctions, and what was the actual outcome? The only effect sanctions had were to consolidate Saddam's power while taking a horrible toll on the population. Can you dispute this? This is another mistake supposedly justified by previous mistakes.

 

So you'd have allowed Saddam's regime access to everything after the Kuwait invasion, including military and dual-use technology? Oil for Food ended with Saddam's people taking a large cut. Why blame the West? It makes no sense, the blame falls squarely on Saddam and avoiding pointing the finger. It's always the highest of political chic to blame the US.

 

Those Iraqi deaths have everything to do with the actions of the US/UK, or rather politicians who feel that their decisions are best despite any democratic consensus. What I expect is for my country to quit ensuring its own demise.

 

I doubt it's insuring its own demise, it certainly is insuring a large amount of antagonism. I've said it before, the invasion was utterly stupid and the occupation criminally mishandled.

 

Find all the videos that you can that show people being horribly killed as a result of this interference with matters half way around the globe and then say, "War sucks, people die, what does anyone expect?"

 

I don't need to find them all, I was there in 2003/04. Most Iraqis are being killed by each other. It's our fault we took the lid off the pot by eliminating the Baathists and Saddam. It's the Iraqis fault for killing each other. They aren't friggin' children, they're complicit in this.

 

As for 'war sucks...', I've been in the Gulf War, Kurdish Relief, Bosnia, Somalia and this mess, been in a few firefights and seen a lot of dead civilians and soldiers. War sucks and people die; ain't exactly sophisticated but it's about as square on as I can say it from my experience.

Edited January 1, 2007 by Virgil61

[Moonlapse]

Iraq invaded Iran and used US chemical weapons against them. That entire scenario can be traced directly to the CIA and its activities in regime change in both Iraq and Iran. I'm sure you understand the origins of Islamic radicalism. Iraq, by its natural cultural aspects, should never have been a unified country.

 

Your logic stops at the CIA. Why stop there? Taken further to its natural conclusion it was part of the Cold War and part of the larger struggle against the Soviets. Why not blame it on the Soviets, killing tens of millions of their own and other Europeans; they weren't poster boys for enlightenment.

That reasoning only justifies a few actions, not the majority.

 

I understand Islamic radicalism. Western empire building and thirty years of CIA involvement doesn't justify strapping a bomb to one's back and killing hundreds. It's based on ignorance, anti-rational thought, a backward culture, oppression of anyone not Muslim and a great deal of inferiority and anger at that inferiority towards the West. Unlike the West, Islamic countries haven't had a period of enlightenment or undergone a secularization of religion.

I never said suicide bombing it was justified. I implied that CIA intervention in the affairs of other countries is a proximate cause of violent resistance.

 

What was the intended purpose of the sanctions, and what was the actual outcome? The only effect sanctions had were to consolidate Saddam's power while taking a horrible toll on the population. Can you dispute this? This is another mistake supposedly justified by previous mistakes.

 

So you'd have allowed Saddam's regime access to everything after the Kuwait invasion, including military and dual-use technology? Oil for Food ended with Saddam's people taking a large cut. Why blame the West? It makes no sense, the blame falls squarely on Saddam and avoiding pointing the finger. It's always the highest of political chic to blame the US.

Sole blame is neither on Saddam nor the West, but there is an incredible opposition to ever admitting that we have ever made mistakes or helped to cause any of this, however intentional or unintentional. To answer your loaded question, I'd try to find a better solution than just imposing backwards sanctions that empower a tyrant and make the population dependent upon him. If it's always the highest of political chic to blame the US, then its doublethink to think that it cannot be blamed.

 

 

Those Iraqi deaths have everything to do with the actions of the US/UK, or rather politicians who feel that their decisions are best despite any democratic consensus. What I expect is for my country to quit ensuring its own demise.

 

I doubt it's insuring its own demise, it certainly is insuring a large amount of antagonism. I've said it before, the invasion was utterly stupid and the occupation criminally mishandled.

The US may not cease as a country but things that I love about it are surely dying. Is the invasion utterly stupid because it's now turned people against our foreign policies?

 

Find all the videos that you can that show people being horribly killed as a result of this interference with matters half way around the globe and then say, "War sucks, people die, what does anyone expect?"

 

I don't need to find them all, I was there in 2003/04. Most Iraqis are being killed by each other. It's our fault we took the lid off the pot by eliminating the Baathists and Saddam. It's the Iraqis fault for killing each other. They aren't friggin' children, they're complicit in this.

 

As for 'war sucks...', I've been in the Gulf War, Kurdish Relief, Bosnia, Somalia and this mess, been in a few firefights and seen a lot of dead civilians and soldiers. War sucks and people die; ain't exactly sophisticated but it's about as square on as I can say it from my experience.

I'm aware of your background, I've read about it several times. I still hold my country's politicians responsible for their actions regardless of any responsibility that needs to be shared by others.

[Virgil61]

Iraq invaded Iran and used US chemical weapons against them. That entire scenario can be traced directly to the CIA and its activities in regime change in both Iraq and Iran. I'm sure you understand the origins of Islamic radicalism. Iraq, by its natural cultural aspects, should never have been a unified country.

 

Your logic stops at the CIA. Why stop there? Taken further to its natural conclusion it was part of the Cold War and part of the larger struggle against the Soviets. Why not blame it on the Soviets, killing tens of millions of their own and other Europeans; they weren't poster boys for enlightenment.

That reasoning only justifies a few actions, not the majority.

 

It doesn't? The Cold-War almost defines US foreign, and to a lesser extent, economic policy from '45 to '90. From the Korean conflict to Vietnam and even Grenada the Cold War was the primary impetus. I'd suggest a few post-war histories of American diplomacy, foreign policy and undercover operations.

 

Sole blame is neither on Saddam nor the West, but there is an incredible opposition to ever admitting that we have ever made mistakes or helped to cause any of this, however intentional or unintentional. To answer your loaded question, I'd try to find a better solution than just imposing backwards sanctions that empower a tyrant and make the population dependent upon him. If it's always the highest of political chic to blame the US, then its doublethink to think that it cannot be blamed.

 

A loaded question is one that indicates a certain outcome whatever the answer. Your choice in the answer includes a 'no'.

 

You weren't originally giving criticism, you were giving outright condemnation of US actions. They are two different things. You leave out the political realities of the time and want to judge their actions in a foreign policy vacuum. I consider criticism of US involvement in Iran valid in the sense of how it was conducted--stupidly and noninclusive of the needs of the populace--not in the fact that it was conducted [with an eye towards preventing Soviet influence]. US and European policy in the Iran-Iraq War was one of a Hobson's Choice.

 

I consider the fact of US involvement in Latin America in the 50s-80s a necessity. I consider the fact that the US consistently ignored the importance of land reform and basic political reforms an atrocious and ignorant mistake.

 

The US may not cease as a country but things that I love about it are surely dying. Is the invasion utterly stupid because it's now turned people against our foreign policies?

 

Well hang on. Bush and his idiotic companions have only two years left. Their attempted curtailment of constitutional guarantees have already peaked.

 

Of course foreign policy and foreign views of American power are not the only reason, but an important one. It effects our influence in the world in trade, political and military matters. Not inconsequential things, you get multi-lateralism or unilateralism, and we've seen how this administration loves the later path.

 

I'm aware of your background, I've read about it several times. I still hold my country's politicians responsible for their actions regardless of any responsibility that needs to be shared by others.

 

You said: Find all the videos that you can that show people being horribly killed as a result of this interference with matters half way around the globe and then say, "War sucks, people die, what does anyone expect?" I assumed you were talking to me and if so it seemed an odd statement if one knew my background. I consider mention of it relevant when the topic is such; there's that nifty ignore function for those who think otherwise.

 

I hold Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz and co., responsible for the deaths of 3000 soldiers, sailors, airmen, coasties and Marines in the case of an unnecessary invasion and a botched occupation. The Iraqis are their own friggin' worst enemies. The best thing to be said of a nation like Iraq is that it needed a murderous leader to keep it in check. Not very hopeful in any contingency.

[Moonlapse]

I've read quite a bit of 20th century US history lately from all different perspectives in order to try and make sense out of some things that I held to be contradictory. I see the Cold War reasons, but I don't see the justification. What I am saying is that good intentions are the best facade for any political actions, but I don't happen to believe in the honesty of any of these supposedly justifiable intentions, nor do I see any reason to, unless I wish to be a sucker.

 

What I've found is an ideology centered around manufacturing realities as a means to an end. This includes the belief that we are benevolently spreading 'democracy'. These intentions will always be noble in the utmost. The realities lie in the outcomes of everything that we have been involved in. This is not to say that this what I consider the embodiment of America, but the embodiment of the ideologues who have hijacked our political system. I see no real distinction between Kennedy, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, or Bush in this respect.

 

When I personally think of how I would gain global control while evading the pitfalls of past attempts, I can appreciate the subtlety of our dominant politicians' policies. The best means of formulation is to take the final result and work backwards in the process with an eye to the most innocent and noble justifications. Manufacturing reality as a means to an end. If you don't question the fundamental assumptions that this reality is based on, then there is no logical solution but the one that has been handed out. When I consider 19th and 20th century history, I find that this approach fits perfectly. Massive progress has been made in perception management, not just other sciences.

 

One assumption that I question is whether or not it is our duty to project our noble aims on the populations of other countries. In some cases, perhaps yes, but his assumption creates an extremely handy tool to many ends once people put trust in their politicians. Your arguments are perfect in the context that all these past actions have been carried out with only the noblest intentions. I refuse to unquestioningly believe this, so I look for answers and so far am very far from believing.

 

I am not comforted by the thought that Bush's curtailment of the Constitution has peaked. I only consider Bush to be not so subtle in his approach, which is his downfall.

 

BTW, I consider a loaded question to be one that automatically includes presuppositions that one must agree to in order to give a straight answer.

[Titus001]

Ask this,who does this war benefit,i will give my answer later on,im just reading what you guys are saying.Ask this does this war benefit the usa people and iraq?

[Ludovicus]

Was Saddam's execution an Iraqi government act or Shiite retribution? If it's the latter, it will only intensive the civil war going on in that sad country. Saddam was certainly guilty of more than just the deaths of Shiites. What about the Kurds he gassed and other Sunni's he murdered. Why no trial for these attrocities?

 

This execution, to my mind, has all the signs of an ugly revenge move on the part of the Shiite led government. It's reported that the Shiite executioners shouted taunts and curses ar the condemned as the noose was tighened around his neck. Some "execution," more a lynching.

Edited January 2, 2007 by Ludovicus

[Titus001]

The whole war is a joke,its a sunni vs shiite for the most part.It was almost like a lynching with the shiites killing the sunni leader what a joke,and some people think that our leaders did not know this crap would start when we invaded,just a huge big blood bath with old scores to settle.

[tflex]

I agree with a lot of what Moonlapse said. One thing that cannot be denied, is as ruthless as Saddam was, he was the right man to rule Iraq. The Americans, the Europeans, the Middle Eastern gulf states, North Africa, are all indebted to Saddam. They used him successfuly to halt the Iranian Shi3a influence into the Arab world, and it took a long and bloody war with 1 million deaths to accomplish that. The Sunnis practically owe their existance to the man, because Khoumeini or Khoumeinism was expansionary by nature and would have spread with relative ease and force if it wasn't for Saddam's iron hand and barbarity. I disagree with Moonlapse on this issue though, yes the Americans supplied him with chemical and biological weapons, but not to use on his own people. Furthermore, the first Gulf war was nothing but an American trap by the Bush senior and Baker team. I'm one who hates conspiracy theories, especially the 9/11 ridicolous theories, but this is not a theory, Saddam took permission from the U.S. before he invaded Kuwait and they gave him the greenlight, they set the trap and turned on him the next day. It was a shrewd strategy that payed dividends for the U.S. and its allies. They gained more control and influence on Middle Eastern oil and politics, and Saddam was a total dumby for falling into the trap. As bad as Saddam was, he was the right man for his country. The New World Order is better left where it belongs.

Edited January 2, 2007 by tflex