Discussion. And remember, by chopping off someone's head because you two don't agree only make you look like a fool and... a despot.

I just saw the news, where they said Saddam Hussein has been executed.

A lot of people will agree that he was a despot, first rate, and there is no way you can deny he was responsible for thousands of killings, BUT: Is there more to this hanging than just the "bad guy snuffs it. Hooray!"? Will Iraq become a more peaceful place because of the hanging?

As far as I've gathered, he did not have those weapons he was accused of having, even the US senate is starting to admit that seriously. The UK government seems a bit more hesitating. More and more evidence points toward the possibility that these weapons were nothing but a non-existing excuse to take military actions against the maveric.

Maveric, because in the early days Saddam was the western world's puppet to counter Iran. Without the support from especially the UK and the US governments, Saddam would never got to power in the first place. But apparently, his ego grew out of proportions and he started to bite the hands that fed him.

It hasn't been shown any link between Saddam and the 9/11. There has been shown pictures of Saddam together with Bin Laden, but not a single evidence has been uncovered that Saddam had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks. (AFAIK)

Since it was the western governments that pushed Saddam into power, and their interests remain pretty much the same, personally I'm waiting for Saddam II. It's not about stability on the streets of Baghdad, but about stability on Wall Street. If a despot is what it takes, then a despot is what the western world will allow, as long as it's a western friendly despot.

Saddam will most likely become a martyr, and as long as religion is being used as an arguement for chaos, that is not going to calm things one bit. Now that he is dead, his supporters will use that for all it's worth and fanatics who don't support Saddam will nevertheless use it in their anti-western rhetoric. Another arguement to fire another bullet. Not extremly stabelizing, if you ask me.

But maybe it's better that he was hanged since who knows how much power did he actually have, and what he was capable of even from his prison cell. And I doubt this'll make situation in Iraq any worse since it can hardly get worse with more than 10 people a day dying from terrorist attacks.

I agree with Tulac, in order for Iraq to become even more war-torn now, the Sunni or Baathist or whatever insurgents must have been restraining themselves to this point, and they haven't. Sure, the next big blow will be claimed as vengeance for Saddam's death, but it won't be anything new, no big deal, they have already been at their maximum. What takes me to the point that although Sunnites or Baathists can stir civil war, the real danger is that Iraq should become Iran's puppet. What I guess would solve the insurgency problem, since Sunnites will be easily repressed the same way Saddam repressed Shiites. The real reason why the USA's Iraq effort has always been naive, in my opinion, is because they're advancing towards handing Iraq to the Shiite majority, and to the Irani madmen's regime.

And concerning that supposed American support for Saddam, it's always grossly exaggerated. The USA supported Iraq when it seemed that Iran would overrun it during the 80s war that Saddam had started, that was all. As a matter of fact, in that same war Iraq's arsenal was Soviet (Kalashnikov rifles, T-series tanks, Mi-24 copters, etc.) and Iran's arsenal was American (Cobra copters, etc.) dating from the Sha's era prior to the islamic revolution, when Iran was pro-Western. And that's because Saddam's greatest support had came from the USSR, but nobody knows that, and instead USA's support for the lesser evil against Iran only during the war, which was a good move in my opinion (unlike USA's present moves), has been publicited out of proportion as a long-term commitment with the Iraqi regime itself. Heck even France was more commited with Saddam, Chirac travelled to Iraq several times when he was PM and he sold Saddam a nuclear reactor which enabled him to maufacture nuclear weapons, and which Israel had to destroy.

As for the hanging, I can't agree about taking into account the utility instead of the morality. Said otherwise, the point is whether it's just or not, not whether it will increase or decrease violence --I think that won't change anyway.

Saddam was a thug and despot. However, the war to depose him was just that. It had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction, nor islamist terror-- Saddam was only slighter more muslim than the pope (Hardly a poster child for seperation of church and state, he did run a secular government, in the midst of muslim theocracies of various strengths). Only his security apparatus prevented Iraq from being the target of Al-Quaida attacks.

A real source of problems in Iraq is that the US did in Iraq what they did not do to either Germany or Japan. After WWII, the allies removed the leaders from power, but left card-carrying civil servants in their jobs. All Baathists in Iraq were suddenly out of work. Transistioning to a democracy, or any form of government is much easier if you are transitioning from another government. Once you create anarchy, it is really hard to replace it with anything.

The fact is that anarchy most often transforms into a totalitarian or fundametalist regime.

I agree with ribell and Tulac on this. How are the Americans ever going to bring 'democracy' to a land and people whose language they don't even speak?

About democracy in Iraq: I really don't believe for a split second that democracy is what this is about UNLESS we're talking about democracy as a synonym for "western friendly". This definition is in fact the one used by the media and the politicans around here. Free elections are just make-up, what really matters is the country's allegiance in an "us against them" world.

About Soviet support to Iraq vs US support to Iran: These two chubbies made a tradition out of supporting different and opposing camps in various conflicts. It even happened that they swapped camps in the middle of the conflict, so that the Soviets supported a US equipped army and the US supported a Soviet equipped army. The Iranian shah was supported by the west, and I don't find it a bit supprising that Iraq ended up with Soviet weapons.

If I'm not terribly mistaken, Saddam got to power around the same time the Iranian priests made their way to the driver's seat throwing the shah out the window. These priests cannot be accused of being feverishly supportive towards the west. Who would benefit from having an anti-Iranian-priests force in the area? I add 2 and 2, and get the answer Saddam was a very convenient puppet in a political game.

About escalation or not: Libya is officially mourning Saddam's death. If someone plants the notion that the trial and execution was a stage play set up by the west, then what? I don't think we can safely say it will be such a domestic question if this divides other countries into a stronger "us against them". The countries don't even have to be arab or moslem. What about N. Korea? China? I have no idea, but I can't spot the glue here that will bond all countries closer together.

They (US, Soviet, Iraq, Iran, everyone you think) play and will play with life of people for power and money, both with or without Saddam.
Killing him is not going to change the future of those countries, which will be exploited and devastated.
Saddam execution is just (unuseful) propaganda.

The problem is that we can talk about that horrible war, but They'll keep using people like draughtsmans. :tai:

The trial was a farce, and broke the Geneva convention at several points. The notion that the Iraqi people were in control is absurd, not only beucase the Iraqi government is US appointed (yes, there were elections, but the US decided who people coulds vote for) but because the US held him captive and controlled access to him during the trial.

It's just one more pointless death; among those by Saddam during his reign, during the war itself, and those that will follow.

No, the US really does want a democracy in Iraq. Unlike during the Cold War, american interests will not be served by a pro-US totalitarian regime. Unfortnately, they will be hard pressed to get what they want-- a western-style, secular democracy, in a unified Iraq.

A thankless and resentful Iraq, that is otherwise a western-style democracy, would exceed american expectations. No matter what foreign policy is formulated by Iraq, if the government is not a shiite theocracy, and differences of opinion are settled by ballot, not street violence, america should be thrilled.

The whole point of regime change in Iraq was to show how well a western-style democracy can run an arab state. Anything remotely puppet-like would defeat the whole purpose.

Given how he lived, Saddam may have felt slighted if he was not worth executing, and he received more justice than he meted out.

I'm afraid I don't share your enthusiasm over this "democracy" thing. First, in my book the US of A has never been democratic. Free elections and freedom of speech doesn't make democracy by themselves. Second: The indirect elections in the US is by definition not democratic. Third: If you speak your mind in the US when the witch hunt is on, you will be toast, not neccessarily by the Government's hand, the private media can throw a hell of a punch if they want to drive people into a lynching frenzy. Immediately after the 9/11 anyone who looked even remotely Asian ran the risk of being shot quite dead or beaten to a pulp. A lot of that has to be the responsibility of the media.
Western governments have a long tradition of supporting non-democratic movements, preferably a long way from their own lawn. Why on earth should I think that Tinkerbell and Peter Pan recently paid them a visit and talked them into behaving civilized? Peace doesn't always make money, and if it doesn't... Money and profits are the core elements in western democracy, not some naive, childish and unlucurative notion that we will all hold hands while the lamb and the lion play happily and friendly together in a field of daisies. Politics and common sense are not compatible as it is today.
A thought: Who got the contracts when they launced the plans of rebuilding Iraq? Not too many Iraqi companies. Wouldn't it make more sense to give the contracts to the companies that would have been the core of the new Iraq? Why did all the big deals go in favour of western companies?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Mighty Midget @ Dec 31 2006, 12:32 AM) [snapback]272834[/snapback]</div>It is not my enthusiasm, it is the enthusiastic hope of GW Bush. Democracy is an aweful way to run things, but every other way is subject to circumstances or abuses that make them worse. If we could guarantee that every tyrant was as capable as Terry Pratchett's Havelock Vetinari (Patrician of Ankh-Morpork), despotism would run circles around all other forms of government. However, it only takes one ruthless individual who selfishly chases raw power to spoil it for everybody. Egypt still benefits from Nasser's dictatorship, decades after his death. Even if only compared to who he replaced (the Baptiste regime), Castro has done wonders for Cuba.

Freedom of speech does not force people to agree with you. Sales of Beatle records may have collapsed after the 'more popular than god' comment, but no american was allowed to actually harm John Lennon's person. Compared to the mobs stirred up by muslim clerics, mobs of americans are terribly, terribly tame.

You must have meant 'arab' or 'islamic'. In north america, asian either means from the indian sub-continent or (to quote HRH Prince Phillip) 'slitty-eyed'*. To us, the Middle East is only really part of Asia if we are playing RISK.

Western governments stopped supporting totalitarian, anti-communist regimes once the Soviet Union was no longer able to prop up totalitarian, socialist regimes. Admittedly, this is still relatively new, but any totalitarian regime still extant has been able to bankroll itself. Now that the threat of the Global Communist Conspiracy has been revealed as the paper mouse that it truly is, you cannot get money from western democracies merely for being anti-communist

Which Iraqi companies had the manpower, organization, and equipment to rebuild Iraq? Thanks to UN sanctions, there were none. Due to the predations of the insurgents, the foreign companies cannot even hire locals to do the work. Quite frankly, I hope the Iraqi's stiff the US for the reconstruction bill (they did not ask the US to destroy their infrastructure, nor did they ever vote for Saddam).


* I would like to apologise to anyone who may have been offended. There is nothing wrong with having epicanthic folds in the eyelids. It is just difficult to describe racial characteristics without making what the PC police would call a racist remark. I heard an ad parodying the American Civil Liberties Union: "As you celebrate the holidays in accordance to your traditions, someone, somewhere, is offended"

Contracts weren't granted to Iraqi companies, not because they were ruined by the sanctions, but because Iraq was a Socialist state and so there were no such things as Iraqi companies, everything bigger than your usual kebab stall was state-owned.

The USA didn't support only anti-communist regimes, Saddam was pro-communist for one. But I repeat, the USA aided him *only* during the war, when it was the clever thing. And even Yugoslavia's Tito, who was a communist, received lotta cash from US taxpayers, simply because even being communist, his being anti-USSR entitled him to. But this pertains to that half of thigs happened which people haven't heard about for some reason.

MM, if the USA is no democracy in your book, let me know which country is or is closest to be. And I'm amazed that, being so very likely that people be shot quite dead or beaten to a pulp, no such things actually happened in so big a country as the USA. I lean to think that you may have exaggerated. And I don't see the media following orders from the White House, with the CNN's news editor saying that US troops shoot at journalists on purpose to kill, and all those late shows ridiculizing Bush every single day --often resulting hilarious I must say. And what witch hunt is that, who's in jail or whatever in the USA for speaking?

Japofran: People where indeed killed or beaten in the US after the 9/11 attacks. The mobs attacked Sikhs as well as arabs. They didn't care. Just because it didn't make breaking news in your neighbourhood does not mean it didn't happen.

And about US support to Saddam... seems our educational systems use different history books. We were told in school how the US/UK especially got Saddam to power.

I never said the Media follow orders from the White House. I said the media sometimes have an agenda, and the power to turn oppinions. Do you trust or question the newspapers you read, Japofran?

About democracy: In my book, there is no such thing as democracy other than an idea. Plain and simple. Simply because there is no country where the crowd calls the decisions. The Swizz are onto something, but they are not democratic through and through. Semi-democracy = non-democracy.

How many people were killed or beaten, a representative amount? And surely the government was all behind it, and the judicial system did nothing. If democracy is nothing but an idea, it's a useless concepts since it represents nothing within reality. Then I'll ask you which country has a fairer political system in your opinion. I tend to imagine that you think that direct voting like in ancient Athens is a necessary condition for democracy. The Athenian democracy was a great accomplishment in its time, but its unsuitability for nothing but a tiny city apart (people living miles from Athens had the right to vote but they had to actually go to the city every time they wanted to vote), it lacked some elements which are essential in a true democracy. In Athens, if approved through popular vote, everything was legal. From stripping a citizen of its civil rights including even the very right to live within Athens (ostracism), to slaughtering thousands of innocents (this is no hypothetical case, I'm thinking about a definite one), including convicting men who hadn't been proven guilty but whom the "mob", as you call it, considered so.

I had a teacher back at the school that told us that aliens were messengers of God, who was in turn but electromagnetic radiation, and that Elijah's chariot was an UFO. I know that US's supposed commitment with Saddam is a widespread idea, but that doesn't make it any truer. Pray explain why the Iraqi army's arsenal was Soviet instead of American like for example Lebanon's is.

I question the media, if you hadn't guessed I don't believe that US troops shoot at journalists on purpose to kill, that terrorists --or "militants" are they're now called by all media-- are freedom fighters, or that Israelis are nazis. And of course the media do have the power to turn opinions, forty years ago most Europeans were friendly to Israel.

Ok, I see my tendencies for sarcasm gets the better of me and that I'll have some work to do on myself ^_^ But anyway, here goes:

How many got killed or beaten? I have no idea, but I remember the news broadcasts showing victims as well as people shouting how they wanted to smash "them" up. And no, I don't believe I got "the full story" :)

I never said the government was behind it. I said the media should take responsibility. We both agree that the US media, even the Gov. friendly, are privately owned. They have their own interests. But more often than not, the government in any country will make business' interests their own. So, it's really _kind of_ the opposite of "media being the mouth of the government".

Democracy: I simply do not believe there's such a thing because I really don't believe there is a single human being, ever, who had/have/will have the brains for democracy to work. We're all just to dumb, ignorant, greedy and stuck in illusions of grandour. For Pete's sake: Billions of us seriously believe we humans _own_ nature!!!! And to make matters even worse: Billions of us seriously believe that we are not _part_ of nature!!!! THAT is ignorance, stupidity, greed and illusions of grandour.
THe basics of democracy, as I see it,, is that _everyone_ who contributes should have just as much a voice as anyone else contributing. Today, or in the ancient Greece, that has never been the case.
I don't see a single country as better as anyone else. It's all just different ways of messing things up beyond belief.

As for the Soviet equipment, I alredy did: The Iranian shah was supported by the west, and in good old traditions, Iraq was supported by the East. Later that changed a bit, when the priests got to power in Iran.

About terrorism: The definition of terrorism is made by "those we trust the most". That's all. And they are all right. Terrorists strike innocents on both sides.

Well anyway I do think some countries are better than others. And I would most definitely live in some of them than in others. As for the media, let's see what's their agenda, for instance, regarding Saddam's hanging:

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=...tnG=Search+News

All news items in mainstream media show Saddam's hanging as a mistake, or are whitewashing his image outright. My favourite is this:

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=174752

So kitsch.

LOLLAM! That quote is great! Of course it is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth... HAHAHA "Saddam" is an Arab word and means "cuddly", we all know that :P

As for which country to live in: To me it seems I can choose between countries that will do me in and countries that will be too embarrasing to live in. One country tries to wipe out it's own population, another tries to wipe out it's neighbour's population and a third tries to wipe out the entire planet. (PS that was an exaggeration :P but one with a point). Point is: It comes natural for us to think about ourselves, "which country would _I_ like to live in?" without thinking about the destruction we cause all over. Of course I would prefer to live in Norway rather than N. Korea... personally... based on what I've heard... But I'm not sure if N. Korea is more to blame for any global mess than Norway is to blame. Frankly, a lot of this country's actions are a bloody disgrace. "Be killed or to die of shame, that is the question"

Well, _I_'d put more philosophy in the punishment.
Instead of killing him he could have... bonded bags or something. Planting trees. Like giving something back he took away. And make him think and suffer.
Uh, check this out: planting trees -> giving life :sneaky: He won't be able to reincarnate people but he gives life back.
Now he's dead and won't realize a thing.
This is just an example, I guess you guys get the point.

icewolf, he's not born and raised like you. he would plant the trees but keep the same logic. the thing is you won't realise a thing he knows and believes in, because you're on the other side of the planet, almost.
meh...another one bites the dust.
saddam => _)_
good punishment, i heard he died in 3 minutes. saw his long neck ^_^
happy new year! we're in E.U. (romanians)... you'll hear from us again(from those on the ...bad side) :P

You can watch the whole thing at XXXXXX

A bit too grafic to see here. If ppl REALY want to see it, they can dig it out themselves.. didn't take my many minutes. We have a set minimum age of 13 here. We will act there after. Everyone is not mature enough to handle such information. //Titan

If that's the actual hanging, I'd say go ahead, be my guest. Personally, I find that sort of entertainment quite distasteful. I have enough imagination to picture what a hanging may look like... *snap*, spasms, bodily waste dripping... nah, it's not for me.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DLoTTn @ Jan 3 2007, 10:50 PM) [snapback]273160[/snapback]</div>Im 14 and i saw it... l0l pwned! :bleh:

On topic:
Saddam now got his punishment, good. But when do Bush and blair get thiers?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(U-Boat Commander David @ Jan 4 2007, 11:34 AM) [snapback]273225[/snapback]</div>I read some time back that certain European officials threatened Bush that if he ever came to the EU, he'll be arrested, charged with crimes against humanity. Seems to me bushy George is doing the best he can to alienate himself from the rest of the world. But I guess anyone so far off any path of Reality, has it coming.

i watched it too.. too crappy. saw better.java script:ShowHide('qr_open','qr_closed');
Fast Reply

^LOL

Hanging isn't my fetish I'd rather watch someone burn to tell you the truth. :max: /end sick humour
That would start a new world war.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tulac @ Jan 4 2007, 12:12 PM) [snapback]273233[/snapback]</div>I don't think it was meant as anything but an extreme signal that he has gone way too far. Beside, it might happen (although not very likely) that politicians and lawmakers in the US realize what he's doing, and withdraw any imunity he might enjoy...

and then pigs will fly....

yeah :D true, it's not extremly likely to happen, but what happens if the White House seriously blow it making it diffcult for the rest of the world to accept trading with US companies? What is heavier? An ex-president, or money?

I don't have a particularly strong opinon about whether Saddams death is good or bad, per say, however I do strongly detest the notion of capital punishment.

Rbell, I'm interested to hear what points of the geneva convention you believe were broken by the trial. I watched most of the trial (yes I'm that nerdy sometimes) and in my view it seemed like the only people turning it into a circus were Saddams lawyers, his brother-in-law and the American "representitive," (incidentally, why the hell was he there anyway!?)

I believe that if this trial had occured in the Hague then the Iraqi people would have been further alienated from the western world that is attempting to impose itself on them, and that Saddam would have become even more of a martyr for more than just Sunni factions. This occured during the trials of various African warlords who were tried at the Hague (I'm too tired to dig up the names, but just pick any blood-diamond evil soul that ran off to live in Saudi before getting caught.)

I also believe that George Bush is doing his "cause" (yuk!) a huge disservice by piping up that he doesn't agree with how the execution occured. He got what he wanted, and should stop stirring the pot. He's already mirred in the shades of Vietnam. It can only get worse.

Also, just by the by, another bomb just went off here about an hour ago (the 10th one in 5 days.) It was about two blocks from my apartment at a protest rally in an open air marketplace. Apparently there's going to be another coup tonight.

*sigh*

Democracy? Pfft. It may not be perfect, but it sure beats the hell out of tanks and guns and bombs everywhere let me tell you. And the one thing I've learned from seeing this muck is that tanks and guns and bombs are the least effective thing to help put such a system in place - just like a tree with rotten roots.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Lulu_Jane @ Jan 5 2007, 08:34 AM) [snapback]273379[/snapback]</div>I guess they need someone to confirm that they don't just say he got executed but that they really did it. Probably one of their countless "secret" people.

Wise words here in my opinion. But on the other hand, that's what he's like probably: Embarressing th USA

Right. Ever seen a healthy tree on scorched earth?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(U-Boat Commander David @ Jan 4 2007, 11:34 AM) [snapback]273225[/snapback]</div>And you also seem to be proud of it. Many kids in your age act like that.
And that is exactly the reason why A there's the minimum age and
B it was perfectly right to remove that link.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Icewolf @ Jan 5 2007, 09:37 AM) [snapback]273394[/snapback]</div>Well, post-Second World War Germany and Japan for example, but a World War is a very special case. And as I've said I don't think Iraq is going anywhere near democracy. And if the excuse for the coup in Thailand was that democracy was going down towards populism or whatever the generals say, the logical consequence is that if you end the current dictatorship and implement democracy it will go the same way down. Maybe the generals think that everything will be fine because they'll negotiate the end of terrorism, good luck with that, it doesn't look like it. :(

i read today about this USA kid who wanted to reanact the video. well kind of he did the full thing and removed himself from the human kind gene pool. natural selection at it's best. :D

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(gregor @ Jan 5 2007, 06:25 PM) [snapback]273471[/snapback]</div>I belive it was a 6 yr old Pakistani kid..
Gregor.. One warning; Cut the BS/Spamming. OK?

Oh good god, that's pretty horrific. And idiotic.

Good parenting is clearly in play there!

And Saddam should at least have been imprisoned for life, or at most shot.

A hanging is the most disrespectful manner of execution; being shot is considered honourable. It won't be worth it when his supporters rise up against the US/British forces and cause even more pointless loss of life.

Perhaps it is where you come from, but I believe that dead is dead, no-matter how it happens. There is nothing honourable about capital punishment no-matter what method is used, whether it be hanging, beheading, lethal injection or a bullet - I don't believe any part of it is particularly honourable for either the condemmed or the exocutioners.

Just my opinion of course.

hm...

I'm against the death warrant and glad we don't have it here in germany.
Making him a martyr in the eyes of his followers was a really big mistake and hanging him is an unclean method in my eyes.
Imprisonment for life - yes -- death penalty - no.

By the way and off topic, I read the boy was 10 years old, and his origins were Guatemalan but it's a disgrace whatever the details.

Anyway it seems that showcasing something makes it attractive to be emulated, and not only for kids. Of course most times one's got to have the intention in the first place, but sometimes it's the TV which pushes you to action. For example, a melancholic person hears about a particular way of comitting suicide, and for some reason he does it as well. Or some moron dreams about going into a killing spree but restrains himself, and then he hears about another moron who did it and in his mind it's now somewhat socially endorsed ("I won't be the only weirdo having done it"), and he does it following the same patterns. Although there were dozens of hangings in Western movies, but I guess it can be perceived differently when one knows it's for real, and besides old movies didn't use to show gruesome details, the camera looked another way and it was implied.

But I guess you can't be censoring TV for that, adults are adults and their behaviour is their responsibility, and as for kids they should be carefully watched by their parents. Nowadays kids watch all sorts of things and most likely playing a FPS won't do them much harm, but then watching a single execution may have a very deep impact.

We had this discussion about this kid doing himself in after playing WoW for about a lifetime, non-stop. This reminds me of him. The problem is that these kids are, for various reasons, unstable as a tower of eggs on a turntable going 45 rpm during an earthquake. Parents need to open their bleeding eyes and start actually caring for their offspring.