Political Crossfire Forums

[Ssushi]

So Sadam has the death penalty for the murder of of 148 people. Meanwhile, post his rule some 10,000 to 37,000 civilians have died.

We can debate about intent and all that stuff but at the end, we're talking about the deaths of human beings... Intent and our intentions do not matter to the dead.

Saddam ruled by horrible brute force, are we not effectively doing the same? Does it matter that the post-Saddam-dead died in 'the cause of good'? If our intentions were good? The result of removing him from power has been that more Iraqi's are dead than if Saddam was in power. Who's right? Saddam who kept a lid on sectarian violence, by using his own brand of violence, or the West, for giving/imposing 'freedom' on Iraq, who is clearly not ready for the responsibilities that freedom requires...

For me, ethically, the Alliance is almost as guilty as Saddam.

[sherborne]

Ssushi wrote: So Sadam has the death penalty for the murder of of 148 people. Meanwhile, post his rule some 10,000 to 37,000 civilians have died.

We can debate about intent and all that stuff but at the end, we're talking about the deaths of human beings... Intent and our intentions do not matter to the dead.

Saddam ruled by horrible brute force, are we not effectively doing the same? Does it matter that the post-Saddam-dead died in 'the cause of good'? If our intentions were good? The result of removing him from power has been that more Iraqi's are dead than if Saddam was in power. Who's right? Saddam who kept a lid on sectarian violence, by using his own brand of violence, or the West, for giving/imposing 'freedom' on Iraq, who is clearly not ready for the responsibilities that freedom requires...

For me, ethically, the Alliance is almost as guilty as Saddam.

I think what you are trying to say is that good is merely a poit of view. Therefore its a grey area where Iraq is concerned as to who the good guys really are. I gave up a long time ago beleiveing that we were the good guys. I supported the war to begin with because i bought into all the bull s**t about WMD's. I have since come to realise that it was a war of aggression by a stupid and dumb American administration that was tragically backed up by Blairs ruthless pragmatism, much to the detriment of all.

Saddam Hussein himself has shown candid acceptance of the years of his regime and has pleaded with Iraqis to at least remember its benefits:

Quote: Saddam Hussein, who is on trial for mass murder and genocide, has issued an extraordinary message from his prison cell, urging warring Iraqis to set aside their differences, drive the multinational forces from Iraq, and then forgive those "who shed the blood of your sons and brothers".
In a three-page open letter dictated to his lawyers on Saturday and made public yesterday, the former Iraqi dictator said resistance against the US-led occupation forces was "a right and a duty" and that "victory is certain". But he said: "Do not forget that your goal is to liberate your country from the invaders and their followers and is not a settling of accounts outside this goal."

He also called on Iraqis "to forgive those who shed the blood of your sons and brothers, including the sons of Saddam Hussein". Uday and Qusay Hussein were killed in a US raid in Mosul in 2003 after a tip-off by an Iraqi man who was sheltering them.[source guardian online]



At the end of the day what people want, whether in the middle east, Africa, or anywhere else, more than anything else, is not some vague and meaningless concept of democracy. This is now how the war is being justified. What people want and need above all else is security not democracy. If democracy cannot supply this and garuntee it then people will reject the democracy perhaps in favour of a more repressive or brutal regime. If you ask Germans the best bit about the Nazi regime most say that at least Hitler kept the streets safe at night.

So what responsibility to we as westerners share in the hell hole of Iraq? I got shouted down on this message board for predicting that civillian casualties would breach the 500,000 mark. Now it seems that that may have been a conservative estimate, considering the likleyhood is now that Iraq will implode into a civil war. We in the west need to radically alter our stance on Iraq. It is one thing to commit a crime of this scale, but its quite another to perpetuate or prolong it unnesessarily. America needs to disolve its taboo in talking to Iran and Syria and use both of them to try and curb the violence. It also needs to leave Iraq, sooner rather than later. Attempts to impose a liberal democracy in the middle east died with those half a million people. Its time that Bush and Balir start living up to the mistakes that they have made in the hope that they can go some way at least to atoning for all of the deaths that they have caused.

[Fido]

You really have to want a man to die to see thousand of his enemies and thousands of our friends and neighbors killed to see it happen. I guess that means we don't love his guts. Was there no other way? Was it not possible to arm the Shia or the kurds against him? Was it too much to ask that we empower his enemies against him rather than disempowering everyone in the whole country including, now, ourselves? Here is what we should have said: He is irrelivant. That would have been a message to him that he should locate his grave; and would have been a message to his friends to not stand too close to him. When we call some one irrelivant they do not live too long because in our estimation, they already have.

We have bought an expensive hanging. I hope we get framed pictures for the families of our dead servicemen. It is the least we can do for them. The president could send a note saying: Your child did not die for oil company profits; but died for this one death. Enjoy. For death, all the sacrifices of raising your child have been made meaningless. For death, your child was born and raised. For death, your child died. Celebrate death.

Do you think anyone in power has the ability or the desire to tell this simple truth. It is not worth it. The war is not worth it.

[no.1]

We were supposed to arm people against him the last time and we didn't and let them down. I don't think they would trust us a second time around.

[Fido]

no.1 wrote: We were supposed to arm people against him the last time and we didn't and let them down. I don't think they would trust us a second time around.

Yes, we should have when we had the chance, but were afraid of having to deal with the Shia, and did not want to enrage Turkey with the danger of a greater Kurdistan. Guess what? Now we have those problems and worse. We could have struck when the iron was hot. We did not. After that a solution waited on a time when the Mullas would refuse to pray for Saddam at Friday prayers. Obviously arms were not of themselves the problem. It is the fact that Muslims will deal with, and live with any indignity, or injustice so long as it has the slightest support from the religious establishment. There is no hope for any one going it alone in that society, unless going it alone against non Muslim invaders.

We missed our opportunity because we needed some one to hang the Persian Gulf bill on. But the bill was not paid anyway. Who expected it would be? It is certain that if we had allowed him to be swept from office then no one would have accepted the bill for his deeds. So what? The mess would have been resolved by now. The oil would be ours for the buying. We have not only lost lives, but the most valuable commodity in the world: Time.

[Snake]

You all know there were going to be other trials, right? If he wins an apeal, and somehow gets out of this execution, he still has to answer for gasing the Kurds.

[Melcar]

The whole thing is pointless and nothing but a big publicity/political stunt. Should have just taken a .45 to his head and get to the real issues, like lt's say, rebuilding the damn country.

[sherborne]

Kamel wrote: You all know there were going to be other trials, right? If he wins an apeal, and somehow gets out of this execution, he still has to answer for gasing the Kurds.

The whole trail(s) procedure (and i include all the trials that he wil have aswell) is a farce. The double standards that are on display are plain for all to see. Nobody is denying that Saddam was a brutal dictator. But now people demonize him so much in the west in an effort to try and excuse the war. It makes me sick! The trial wasnt fair and never will be fair. And Sadam's crimes, sick and brutal though they were; were not massivley worse than certain regimes who are allied to the US on its so called war on terror. The whole thing would be comical if it werent such a tragedy.

[Snake]

So, what you're saying is that we shouldn't have removed Saddam, because some people are worst than him?

[sherborne]

Kamel wrote: So, what you're saying is that we shouldn't have removed Saddam, because some people are worst than him?

Yes and No. Im mainly just despairing at the lunacy of the whole Iraq war and how it is justified by our rather shallow leaders. Thats all!

But as a point of reference - no we should not have removed him because it wasnt our business to. Added to which he posed little or no threat to anyone, except for perhaps Iran! Ah the irony!

[The Newb]

sherborne wrote: Kamel wrote: So, what you're saying is that we shouldn't have removed Saddam, because some people are worst than him?

Yes and No. Im mainly just despairing at the lunacy of the whole Iraq war and how it is justified by our rather shallow leaders. Thats all!

But as a point of reference - no we should not have removed him because it wasnt our business to. Added to which he posed little or no threat to anyone, except for perhaps Iran! Ah the irony!

you forgot, kuwait, isareal, saudi arabia, uae, ect....

[pikers]

Ssushi wrote: So Sadam has the death penalty for the murder of of 148 people. Meanwhile, post his rule some 10,000 to 37,000 civilians have died.

We can debate about intent and all that stuff but at the end, we're talking about the deaths of human beings... Intent and our intentions do not matter to the dead.

Saddam ruled by horrible brute force, are we not effectively doing the same? Does it matter that the post-Saddam-dead died in 'the cause of good'? If our intentions were good? The result of removing him from power has been that more Iraqi's are dead than if Saddam was in power. Who's right? Saddam who kept a lid on sectarian violence, by using his own brand of violence, or the West, for giving/imposing 'freedom' on Iraq, who is clearly not ready for the responsibilities that freedom requires...

For me, ethically, the Alliance is almost as guilty as Saddam.

So what you're saying essentially is that Iraq is filled with outlaws and should be carpet-nuked as opposed to any effort being made on its behalf? Without a tyrannical dictator, it is lost?

Oh, well, we tried I suppose.

[sherborne]

The Newb wrote: sherborne wrote: Kamel wrote: So, what you're saying is that we shouldn't have removed Saddam, because some people are worst than him?

Yes and No. Im mainly just despairing at the lunacy of the whole Iraq war and how it is justified by our rather shallow leaders. Thats all!

But as a point of reference - no we should not have removed him because it wasnt our business to. Added to which he posed little or no threat to anyone, except for perhaps Iran! Ah the irony!

you forgot, kuwait, isareal, saudi arabia, uae, ect....

Right so lets go and invade every country that poses a threat to regional stability then shall we. That means we would have to have on our list North Korea, China, Ethiopia, Turkey, Israel, Iran etc etc. Infact, you would probably end up invading everyone so you could turn the world into your own little utopia. Its boring people justifying the invasion as removing someone who was a threat to regional stability! I suppose that we have left a far more stable situation in place than there ever was with Saddam yes?

[Ssushi]

The point of my original post was to point out that they are planning to kill a guy over the deaths of 100+ people. Yet there stands Blair and Bush, who arguably are responsible for the deaths of many many more Iraqi citizens and they are not even on trial.

Do you see what I'm saying here? The net affect of Saddam in Iraq was the deaths of many people. The net affect of Blair and Bush in Iraq is also the deaths of many people. Saddam gets hung, Blair and Bush get off scott-free...

[JoeBen81]

Kim Jong Ill wrote: So, what you're saying is that we shouldn't have removed Saddam, because some people are worst than him?
No were simply saying that we should step back and look at what it looks like to the rest of the world. We're orchestrating a hanging of a former president, gangster or not, for abusing his power and killing innocent Civs. All the while our president has been abusing his power and tolerated the killing of innocent civs. Notice the difference in the two.

Saddam = order civilian deaths
Bush = Tolerates civilian deaths

That's a Huge moral difference, Saddam is a killer, he deserves to die. Bush isn't a killer, and does not deserve to die. Ignorance, though terribly destructive when coupled with power or influence, shouldn't be payable by death. Still, Bush's policies are far from real Christan or American values, regardless of how many people who claim to understand God say otherwise.

Most people around the world understand this contrast as well. They and us that disapprove of Bush here in the states arn't saying "that if Saddam is being hung, Bush should be too." We're just saying the when the GOP celebrates the Saddam verdict as a win for themselves, it looks like Ike Turner touting the the Scott Peterson verdict as vindication for himself.

[sherborne]

JoeBen81 wrote: Kim Jong Ill wrote: So, what you're saying is that we shouldn't have removed Saddam, because some people are worst than him?
No were simply saying that we should step back and look at what it looks like to the rest of the world. We're orchestrating a hanging of a former president, gangster or not, for abusing his power and killing innocent Civs. All the while our president has been abusing his power and tolerated the killing of innocent civs. Notice the difference in the two.

Saddam = order civilian deaths
Bush = Tolerates civilian deaths


Your logic is flawed. It should read:

Saddam = ordered civillian deaths
Bush = responsible for civilian deaths

joeben81 wrote: That's a Huge moral difference, Saddam is a killer, he deserves to die. Bush isn't a killer, and does not deserve to die. Ignorance, though terribly destructive when coupled with power or influence, shouldn't be payable by death. Still, Bush's policies are far from real Christan or American values, regardless of how many people who claim to understand God say otherwise.

Most people around the world understand this contrast as well. They and us that disapprove of Bush here in the states arn't saying "that if Saddam is being hung, Bush should be too." We're just saying the when the GOP celebrates the Saddam verdict as a win for themselves, it looks like Ike Turner touting the the Scott Peterson verdict as vindication for himself.

There is a moral difference i agree. However i wouldnt execute Saddam if i had i my way, but lets not go into that. I do think however that Bush (and Blair) have a lot to answer to both in their own respective countries and in the world at large. A lot of people have died in the, or as a result of, the iraq conflict (over 600,000 people, thats 1 in 40 Iraqis as a whole). The war was sold to the public and the UN on false pretences. This deserves some form of retaliation, whether legal or political. If you could imagine Iraq as a person who was charged with a crime, then once they had been sentanced it was found that they werent actually guilty of that crime, that kinda s*cks i think. Hard though it is for the chauvanistic and machoistic Bush and Blair, it is time that they admitted they were wrong and they should say sorry for what they have done. They are directly and indirectly responsible for so many deaths in Iraq that they are now competing with Saddam for the body count. Some of the worst things in this world have been done with the best of intentions. I have no doubt that Bush and Blair both believed that they could impose a liberal democracy in the middle east but they havnt, and they wont. Its that simple. Its now time to scale back their objectives and try to minimise the damage both to Iraq, America, and most significantly, the west in its propaganda war with al-Quaeda. That is the battle that has taken the worst pummeling because of Iraq. Its time to try and win the war on terror like we won the cold war, peacefully (well mostly at least).

[JoeBen81]

sherborne wrote: JoeBen81 wrote: Kim Jong Ill wrote: So, what you're saying is that we shouldn't have removed Saddam, because some people are worst than him?
No were simply saying that we should step back and look at what it looks like to the rest of the world. We're orchestrating a hanging of a former president, gangster or not, for abusing his power and killing innocent Civs. All the while our president has been abusing his power and tolerated the killing of innocent civs. Notice the difference in the two.

Saddam = order civilian deaths
Bush = Tolerates civilian deaths


Your logic is flawed. It should read:

Saddam = ordered civillian deaths
Bush = responsible for civilian deaths

joeben81 wrote: That's a Huge moral difference, Saddam is a killer, he deserves to die. Bush isn't a killer, and does not deserve to die. Ignorance, though terribly destructive when coupled with power or influence, shouldn't be payable by death. Still, Bush's policies are far from real Christan or American values, regardless of how many people who claim to understand God say otherwise.

Most people around the world understand this contrast as well. They and us that disapprove of Bush here in the states arn't saying "that if Saddam is being hung, Bush should be too." We're just saying the when the GOP celebrates the Saddam verdict as a win for themselves, it looks like Ike Turner touting the the Scott Peterson verdict as vindication for himself.

There is a moral difference i agree. However i wouldnt execute Saddam if i had i my way, but lets not go into that. I do think however that Bush (and Blair) have a lot to answer to both in their own respective countries and in the world at large. A lot of people have died in the, or as a result of, the iraq conflict (over 600,000 people, thats 1 in 40 Iraqis as a whole). The war was sold to the public and the UN on false pretences. This deserves some form of retaliation, whether legal or political. If you could imagine Iraq as a person who was charged with a crime, then once they had been sentanced it was found that they werent actually guilty of that crime, that kinda s*cks i think. Hard though it is for the chauvanistic and machoistic Bush and Blair, it is time that they admitted they were wrong and they should say sorry for what they have done. They are directly and indirectly responsible for so many deaths in Iraq that they are now competing with Saddam for the body count. Some of the worst things in this world have been done with the best of intentions. I have no doubt that Bush and Blair both believed that they could impose a liberal democracy in the middle east but they havnt, and they wont. Its that simple. Its now time to scale back their objectives and try to minimise the damage both to Iraq, America, and most significantly, the west in its propaganda war with al-Quaeda. That is the battle that has taken the worst pummeling because of Iraq. Its time to try and win the war on terror like we won the cold war, peacefully (well mostly at least).

I agree with your assertions 100%. My watered down version was more of an attempt to reach out to Conservatives that arn't trying to hear it. But between you and me (and everyone else who reads this), your absoulty right.

[sherborne]

JoeBen81 wrote: sherborne wrote: JoeBen81 wrote: Kim Jong Ill wrote: So, what you're saying is that we shouldn't have removed Saddam, because some people are worst than him?
No were simply saying that we should step back and look at what it looks like to the rest of the world. We're orchestrating a hanging of a former president, gangster or not, for abusing his power and killing innocent Civs. All the while our president has been abusing his power and tolerated the killing of innocent civs. Notice the difference in the two.

Saddam = order civilian deaths
Bush = Tolerates civilian deaths


Your logic is flawed. It should read:

Saddam = ordered civillian deaths
Bush = responsible for civilian deaths

joeben81 wrote: That's a Huge moral difference, Saddam is a killer, he deserves to die. Bush isn't a killer, and does not deserve to die. Ignorance, though terribly destructive when coupled with power or influence, shouldn't be payable by death. Still, Bush's policies are far from real Christan or American values, regardless of how many people who claim to understand God say otherwise.

Most people around the world understand this contrast as well. They and us that disapprove of Bush here in the states arn't saying "that if Saddam is being hung, Bush should be too." We're just saying the when the GOP celebrates the Saddam verdict as a win for themselves, it looks like Ike Turner touting the the Scott Peterson verdict as vindication for himself.

There is a moral difference i agree. However i wouldnt execute Saddam if i had i my way, but lets not go into that. I do think however that Bush (and Blair) have a lot to answer to both in their own respective countries and in the world at large. A lot of people have died in the, or as a result of, the iraq conflict (over 600,000 people, thats 1 in 40 Iraqis as a whole). The war was sold to the public and the UN on false pretences. This deserves some form of retaliation, whether legal or political. If you could imagine Iraq as a person who was charged with a crime, then once they had been sentanced it was found that they werent actually guilty of that crime, that kinda s*cks i think. Hard though it is for the chauvanistic and machoistic Bush and Blair, it is time that they admitted they were wrong and they should say sorry for what they have done. They are directly and indirectly responsible for so many deaths in Iraq that they are now competing with Saddam for the body count. Some of the worst things in this world have been done with the best of intentions. I have no doubt that Bush and Blair both believed that they could impose a liberal democracy in the middle east but they havnt, and they wont. Its that simple. Its now time to scale back their objectives and try to minimise the damage both to Iraq, America, and most significantly, the west in its propaganda war with al-Quaeda. That is the battle that has taken the worst pummeling because of Iraq. Its time to try and win the war on terror like we won the cold war, peacefully (well mostly at least).

I agree with your assertions 100%. My watered down version was more of an attempt to reach out to Conservatives that arn't trying to hear it. But between you and me (and everyone else who reads this), your absoulty right.

:hip: