View Single Post
Old 01-11-2007, 08:51 AM   #59
Spider AL
@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
Originally posted by Mace MacLeod:

Regardless of the illegality and inherent flaws of his trial, one can at least rest assured that he was certainly deserving of his fate.
Before we consider what punishment fits a crime, we must first prove in a legal sense that the accused committed the crime. I think we're all of the (well founded) opinion that Saddam was a brutal dictator and mass-murderer. Certainly all the available evidence points to such being the case. But it's up to a court to decide these things, not us. And in a case where a person is accused of crimes under international law, a court of international law is the only suitable place to try them.

Therefore, what Saddam "deserved"- morally speaking- was to be tried and sentenced in a court sanctioned by international institutions under international law. Just as every human being deserves fair treatment under the law, regardless of how horrible the crimes they are accused of are. Anything else is merely arbitrary and immoral.

So no, we can't sit here and say "Saddam deserved to be hanged" as if that in any way mitigates the amorality of it all. Because it doesn't.

Originally posted by Mace MacLeod:

The real danger now is that the leaked footage of him being mocked and bayed at makes him into a dead martyr and fans the flames of Sunni discontent.
I think the illegal and immoral trial and execution of Saddam by his enemies in collaboration with the US and UK is enough to fan those flames. I really don't think the video of it will make a bad situation all that much worse.

Originally posted by Mace MacLeod:

Iraq is still teetering on the brink of all-out civil war and a magnet for Muslim terrorists and paramilitaries of all descriptions.
Bit of an overstatement. Iraq is a very lawless, harsh and violent place at this time, due to our illegal international aggression there. But the idea that a massive war between Sunni and Shia is about to spontaneously and suddenly kick off would seem to be neoconservative propaganda. Although, having said that there are those in Iraq who say that the US/UK are- through our policies- actively trying to incite such a conflict. Because it would certainly serve our interests in several ways.


Originally posted by Jae Onasi:

What needs to get done now....we broke it, we need to fix it.
1. Get the oil wells producing...
2. Make sure basic necessary services get put in place quickly...
3. Appropriate representation for all the major groups in gov't...
4. Adequate security to minimize the number of terrorists/paramilitaries...
Jae, these are all lovely, lovely suggestions. They really would be great things to happen. And I for one wish fervently that they COULD happen.

But once again, look at our record in this matter. We have come up with paltry, pathetic sums of money that are COMPLETELY inadequate to the task of rebuilding Iraq... (Which, as you rightly agree, we destroyed) And then we misplaced a huge chunk of that already paltry amount of money.

So though I wish we could do better, I doubt we will. So we must come to the conclusion: The US and the UK are simply unwilling to financially affect our own nations by pouring cash into Iraq... and we would only squander it on spurious corporate contracts and local cliquery if we did.

And also, we are a bad influence in Iraq. The presence of our military is not helping the Iraqi situation in ANY MEANINGFUL WAY. We are a magnet for violence and unrest. We are not well-liked, because we are an occupying force. In many cases throughout our illegal invasion and occupation of the nation, we have actively and directly inflicted evils upon the Iraqi people.

Therefore, we should try to fix Iraq... by going home, and sending money there. We should help Iraqis by sending technicians and advisors. But our occupying forces should leave the country. We have no right to be there, we have no business there, we should abide by the will of the Iraqi people and LEAVE. End of story.

Originally posted by Jae Onasi:

@SA--I never said, nor implied, that religion was the _ultimate_ motivation in the Middle East. My earlier post was addressing Iranian agents, not the entire region as you assumed. It's just more influential than nationalism in a lot of the Middle East
Jae, what you typed was:

"religion drives politics there as much as, if not more than, nationality."

And since we were discussing insurgents in Iraq at the time, it is reasonable to assume that you were referring to Iraq. Hence, my rebuttals citing some small samples of the VAST quantities of evidence to show that nationalist concerns outweighed any religious concerns in Iraq throughout recent history.

Neoconservatives like to parrot the nonsense that Sunni and Shia always were at each others' throats... but under Saddam's regime relations between the two were actually quite good, comparitively speaking. As stated before. If there's any major sectarian violence at this time, it's not because of a denominational issue or an islamic schism... it's because we illegally invaded the country and wiped out the infrastructure, allowing those who want power to use fundamentalist rhetoric to further their goals.

So I have to say once again, if you feel I've misconstrued your intent, that's unfortunate. But I really think it's an issue of your clarity rather than of my comprehension.

Originally posted by Jae Onasi:

because you can't separate Islam from Middle Eastern politics like you can other religions in, say, EU, the Far East, or North America.
No, in most cases, Islam performs exactly the same role in Middle-Eastern politics that Christianity performs in North America, (or Judaism does in Israel): It's a convenient tool to control the minds of a large section of the populace.

Religion is not a driving factor in the major conflicts we've been discussing, however, and it's very rarely a driving factor in any major policy decisions.


Originally posted by Nancy Allen``:

Okay, they may be a bit unfair, but these people, children, are killing themselves in play acting of or in honor of Saddam for hell's sake. I know it's probably wrong to give points to the worst thing to come out of Saddam's execution but this is really the limit.
It IS wrong to "give points", and that's why I noted that it was reprehensible when you did so.

And once again, the fact that you persistently return to these incidents only faintly associated with Saddam's execution that occurred outside Iraq... is telling. It shows that you're not really serious about the issue, because while these suicides are tragic, there are many more tragedies occurring in Iraq that you simply aren't mentioning and don't seem interested in. A human life is a human life. Western lives are no more valuable than Iraqi lives.


Originally posted by Emperor Devon:

A tricky question. The most logical solution, though, would be to give them each an equal amount of the oil. If they have fair shares there'll be less for them to complain about, though I doubt they would cease entirely.
Perhaps so, but these are questions for the Iraqi people.

We have no right to decide such things for them. I personally have some confidence that left alone, the Iraqis could come up with some good, working solutions by themselves. We have never ever left these poor people alone in the past. It's about time that we removed our occupying troops and allowed Iraq to determine its own fate for once.

[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: