View Single Post
Old 01-01-2007, 04:58 PM   #19
Spider AL
A well-spoken villain...
 
Spider AL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Help, help, I'm stapled to my workstation.
Posts: 2,162
Quote:
Originally posted by Nancy Allen``:

With Saddam Hussein put to death by hanging one wonders where Iraq goes from here? Could peace be brought now that the tyrant had been done away with? Will he be seen as a myrter and fresh waves of violence spread throughout the country and the Middle East? Going by recent news the answer could very well be the latter, as 73 I think it was had been killed in retalliation to Saddam's execution, but I would like to hear your thoughts.
The terms of your question aren't really meaningful. The question presumes that the execution of Saddam is a significant event, but while I'm sure it was significant for Saddam, it really wasn't significant for Iraq as a country.

Saddam essentially lost any power and influence he ever possessed when the US and UK illegally invaded Iraq. Saddam really hasn't been a concern since his capture. His execution will have no positive effect on Iraq, and every intelligent person agreed that his execution would have no positive effect on Iraq well before he was hanged. It was obvious.

So "what now for Iraq?" the same thing as before Saddam was executed. Since it's obvious that the US and UK aren't willing to put the kind of monstrous amounts of cash into Iraq as would be necessary to effect true repair... we should just leave. Our presence is illegal, immoral and in practical terms it's a focus for violence. We should respect Iraqi wishes, and leave. Without putting more of our puppets into power, of course.

Quote:
Originally posted by Nancy Allen``:

On the other hand Iran has appeared hell bent on the genocide of the Jews, so certainly if we are to uphold Israel's right to exist then Iran has to be watched carefully.
Iran doesn't have the capacity to destroy Israel, Nancy. Israel has one of the largest armies in the world, and it's the only country in the region with a (massive) nuclear deterrent.

Add continued US/UK backing for Israel into the equation, and you have to come to the conclusion that you're just repeating neo-con propaganda with this "Iran's a danger to Israel" line.

-

Quote:
Originally posted by igyman:

I completely agree, this will not mean improvement of Iraq's situation. It just means more of Bush's control over Iraq.
I understand your sentiments Igy, but people both anti-war and pro-war have to stop obsessing over Bush. He's one individual, he is NOT a mastermind by any measure, he is not influencing US policy in any meaningful way, and never has done. Amoral neoconservative policy has been in place since the 1980s in its current form, well before Bushie, and frankly US foreign policy has always been amoral in one way or another.

Bush (or any other political figurehead worldwide) is a nobody, he's an irrelevance to any discussion of policy.

-

Quote:
Originally posted by jmac7142:

Finally I can get a good night's sleep. I would stay awake for hours wondering if that animal would escape and murder me and the rest of my family. And I bet every single Iraqi in the world feels the same way.


Very good.

-

Quote:
Originally posted by Totenkopf:

Fact is, SH would have been executed as long as it was up to the Iraqis themselves. No new government in Iraq would've had enough Sunni members to avoid that fate.
1. Saddam was villified on the basis that his actions broke international laws. Therefore the only way to try him for those crimes- morally speaking- would have been in a court sanctioned by the institutions that define international law. If you're in favour of lynch-mobs, fine. But they're not moral.

2. The court was not convened by the Iraqi people, it was convened by a US/UK puppet regime that was not democratically elected by any stretch of the imagination. The election of this puppet junta was not democratic, as the US vetted the candidate list. That taints the election, the government and any decisions said government makes.

Quote:
Originally posted by Totenkopf:

Frankly, since the UN did nothing (except possibly profit) about SH, there is no reason that anything like the WC should have had influence or jurisdiction over how Saddam's case was disposed.
1. The UN did what was necessary, it checked that Saddam was not a danger to his neighbors or to us. It emerged that he was neither a danger to his neighbors nor to us, and that he had not possessed any major weaponry since the 1991 conflict. These conclusions were upheld by the US's own report into Iraqi weapons, AFTER the recent invasion.

Ref: https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq...004/index.html

2. The US allegations that you're referring to concerning the oil for food programme were never substantiated. It was a clear attempt on the part of the neo-cons to sully the reputation of the high levels of the UN, which were criticising the US and UK for their illegal international aggression against Iraq at the time. And as previously noted, evidence was uncovered by investigative journalists to suggest that whatever oil-smuggling was going on, the US government was knee deep in it.

Ref: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/d9d4d8b0-64f...00e2511c8.html

3. Saddam was armed and funded throughout the nineteen-eighties by the US and UK precisely so that we could profit from his violence and his aggression against our ideological foes. Even IF the allegations of high-level UN profiteering were substantiated, (which they have not been) it's a bit rich for you to complain about someone else using Saddam for their own ends, when the US was doing it for over a decade.

Quote:
Originally posted by Totenkopf:

Seems to me that a lot of the people who fear Iraq's descent into anarchy ought to step up and volunteer to help stabilize the situation. Might it cost them their lives to do so? Probably. It would mean more, though, than just being meely mouthed and criticizing everything else.
The US sanctions against Iraq (and bombings of Iraq) crippled the Iraqi economy and caused untold death and suffering. The US/UK invasion of Iraq has destroyed what little quality of life the Iraqis had left, has totally destabilised a country which was no threat to its neighbors or to us, has caused islamic fundamentalists to gain new power in Iraq (Saddam was a staunch secularist, far more so than many leaders in the region) and of course we have killed over half a million Iraqi people by the most damning estimate.

All US/UK damage. So who has responsibility to clean up the mess? We do, of course. The US and the UK. Have we made any serious attempt to clean up the mess? Nope. Some of the US money that was meant to fund reconstruction has been spent on spurious contracts for US businesses, and the rest has been... how shall we put this... misplaced. To the tune of nine billion dollars US.

Ref: http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/me...30/iraq.audit/
Ref: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...403034,00.html

And frankly, it would take more than a paltry few billions to rebuild a country in the state that Iraq's in. After all, it took over a decade for us to destroy it.

So frankly, I think your assertion that everyone else should chip in more money and manpower than they already are to clean up our mess... is ludicrous in the extreme.

As for your anti-Iranian rhetoric, it's nonsense.

For one thing, Iranian involvement in Iraq has been overestimated by neoconservatives, according to at least one senior US intelligence official in Iraq. Brigadier General John Custer stated in November on CNN: "If I could snap my fingers and move Iran out of the picture, it wouldn't change -- it wouldn't end the conflict, it wouldn't drastically change the conflict. It's not decisive."

Ref: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP...itroom.02.html

And secondly of course, even if Iran WERE the evil empire you like to make them out to be, (which they are not,) it would be our fault if they nefariously gained control of Iraq and used it for EV0L!!!11 (sic) Because we destabilised the country, and anyone with a brain could have predicted the ill effects of that destabilisation.

-

Quote:
Originally posted by TK-8252:

These sectarian tensions already existed - Sunnis hated Shi'ites, and that's how its always been there. Bush and the majority of the U.S. government was so ignorant of other cultures that they didn't even know what the differences are between Shi'a and Sunni Muslims. We invaded and took out the system that was in place to keep order.
Indeed TK, these sectarian tensions DID exist prior to our invasion. But they simply weren't as pronounced as the neoconservatives want us to believe. There was intermarriage between Shi'ite and Sunni muslims, there was plenty of interaction between the factions in daily life. Only when we invaded were extremist elements able to take some control of the factions and REALLY start trouble.

It's not merely the fact that Saddam did a good job of keeping tensions under wraps, (which he did,) it's that our invasion actively INCREASED tensions, it didn't merely release existing ones. Once again, we have a subtle neo-con dodge, that makes our contribution to Iraq's problems sound smaller than it actually was. Don't let them get away with anything, not even the smallest inaccuracy!


[FW] Spider AL
--
Hewwo, meesa Jar-Jar Binks. Yeah. Excusing me, but me needs to go bust meesa head in with dissa claw-hammer, because yousa have stripped away meesa will to living.
Spider AL is offline   you may: quote & reply,