Eh? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
Printable View
Eh? :confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
I doubt Romania had at least three or four ethnic, political or religous groups ready to jump at each others' throats if given a chance. I think Yugoslavia was a better analogy to Iraq than Romania.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mihai
Were not the Estonian governments between 1940 to 1991 influenced by the Soviet Union (= foreign invaders and occupiers)?Quote:
Originally Posted by studiose
Well, the Council of Ministers of the Estonian Soviet Socialist Republic was, in effect, a branch of the Council of Ministers of the Soviet Union in Moscow. But how does this relate to Iraq?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
Germany had just lost a war, it was spiltted up by the winners, hardly a democratic process by any standards.Quote:
Originally Posted by studiose
Alright. But Iraq's territory is intact and the legislative body is elected by the people in free elections. Why isn't it a democracy?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomi
In democracy and free clections any citizen can candidate, in Iraq this was not the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by studiose
Actually Romania has three major ethnic groups and two of them jump at each others' throats in early 1990 (months after the revolution). The Romanians and the Hungarians. The other one is the gipsies that are largely politically neutral (although their leaders usually make alliances to the party who wins the elections).Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
The 'Yugoslavisation' of Iraq (splitting the country in several ethnic regions) was not an option for the Americans because that would have meant an independent Kurdistan (which is the most peaceful region of Iraq) and that would have upset Turkey. For decades, Turkey is US' main allie from the muslim countries and a 'model' promoted by the US for other muslim countries.
Read agains my lines, I didn't said the Romania was in the same situation as Iraq today, I just argumented the 'importance' of executing the dictator in both countries (since both Saddam and Ceausescu led the country in an opressive manner and they cultivated fear among the lower-ranks of the system).
Forgive me, but what did you expect them to do? The way the war in Germany ended created a messy situation in geographical terms, largely down to the behaviour of the Soviets. In the end, it was possible to contain the problems it caused without armed conflict ensuing. The key difference is that the East and West Germans didn't want to start a civil war with one another. I don't see what Germany has to do with this topic, quite honestly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomi
Yes, there is truth in that, but as far as I understand the only limit set to candidates was that they be over 30 years old and have a high school diploma. In my opinion that doesn't disqualify Iraq from being a democracy, as it doesn't favour one section of the population to another (except the educated to the uneducated, and the older to the younger :) ). Some restrictions are probably necessary and I guess every democracy has them. For example, convicted criminals are not allowed to stand for public office in any democratic country, I suppose, and a minimum age for candidates is also common.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomi
Saddam and other Baathists were excluded. I think they should have been given a chance to prove if they were as popular as they claimed to be.Quote:
Originally Posted by studiose
OK, that's true and it's a valid point. I don't agree that they should have been allowed to run, but it does make the elections not entirely democratic. I guess I'll have to eat the words I posted in post #25 and replace them with...Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
Alright? :p :Quote:
Before the invasion, Iraq was a stable dictatorship whose citizens could be executed basically because Saddam Hussein didn't like them. Now, Iraq is an unstable country aiming at democracy whose citizens can only be executed if a court of law finds them guilty of a grievous crime.
I'm surprised that none of the Brits have expressed their surprise at the unedifying albeit compelling footage of Saddam in the moments leading up to his execution.
Poor taste IMHO especially in view of the fact that many children would have been watching.
Is this a new initiative in stark, graphic TV journalism I wonder?
What next? Noose At Ten?
It must be said and it gives me no pleasure to say it but the man met his fate with great stoicism and no little defiance judging by the steadiness of his bearing and the words of contempt on his lips as the noose was tightened around his neck.
I suppose he deserves some grudging credit for that.
This article summarizes Saddam quite well. Saddam was to the US what Ceausescu, Hoenecker et al were to the Soviet Union. When they were no longer useful, they could go:
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2006Dec...illain,00.html
U.S. Tolerated, Then Villified Saddam
Saturday, December 30, 2006
By CALVIN WOODWARD, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON — When U.S. leaders decided it was time to despise Saddam Hussein, he made the perfect villain.
He was cocky and cunning. He looked dangerous and deranged standing at rallies firing a gun into the air, conduct unbecoming a head of government.
He was Hitler Lite, or as the first President Bush put it, "Hitler revisited," lacking the endless armies, but close enough for U.S. purposes. He had a history of atrocities. His black mustache heightened the aura of menace.
America's quarter-century entanglement with the Iraqi leader ended Friday at the gallows.
His hanging closed the books on a man who dealt with and benefited from the United States, then defied it, then ran like a rabbit into a hole in the ground, reduced to his own army of one.
read a few posts back, then maybe you see why germany is in this topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
just like someone is just a bit pregnant.Quote:
Originally Posted by studiose
Who? :uhoh:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomi
:p :
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
Saddams's courts were imaginably more biase than your probably think. He shot people himself. Saddam was hung for ordering the killings of Kurd in the 80's with biological weopons. But to your mention of Ronald Reagan. The man who tried to kill him was a psyhcopath. He wrote letters to actess Jody Foster saying he loved her so much that he'd kill the president. He was put into a mental institution and not a prison. He is currently out of that institution and lives with his elder mother.
That's incorrect. He was sentenced to death for having over 140 civilians killed after the assassination attempt in 1982.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hayden Fan
He is/was actually in the middle of a second trial for these crimes. THose trials will likely continue for his co-defendents in spite of his execution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hayden Fan
Indeed. This is something that could very well be used by his supporters - the portrayal of Saddam as a hero even in the lead-up to his death.Quote:
Originally Posted by oily oaf
Thank for the correction. Another thing American public schools have said to be true.
Saddam Hussein was responsible for the death of thousands of people and so is George W Bush. Bush most likely won't be executed or even imprisoned, but I hope he'll pay the piper when the Wicked Witch of Washington meets the Butcher of Baghdad in Hell.
YEah that's right ,Quote:
Originally Posted by studiose
But!
Driven and pushed by the US Government, need to self Justify their case for war!
Saddam was born to the devil but so is Bush.
Who realy is the Evil Emperor.
What GW didn't understand is that Saddam Hussein was the man to rule Iraq.
GW will realize too late that Iraq isn't ready to be a democracy.
Iraq had to be ruled by an iron fist to keep the crazys suppressed.
Words like "insurgents" & "militant muslims" doesn't describe the people involved.
Iraq is now at war with itself & only a tyrant could keep those people inline.
The bottom line is that Saddam threatened GW's father's life.
GW got revenge by destroying order in Iraq & seeing the man that threatened his father was killed.
Iraq will never be stable again until another tyrant comes in & takes over where Saddam left off.
I cannot revel in Saddam Hussein's death, I think he was a victim of GW's revenge.
NO weapons of mass destruction were ever found, GW lied to the American people !
Furthermore Saddam Hussein had NO involvement in 911 even though GW tries to say he did !
Our troops will be in Iraq for 2 more years, GW will see to that.
The saddest part of it is that GW will never admit he lied or that he made a mistake. :s
Bill Clinton lied about being involved with Monica but at least no-one died when Clinton lied ! http://www.motorsportforum.com/forum...cons/icon8.gif
Actually Clinton started a conflict against the people of Serbia to cover the Sexgate in the eyes of the American voters and the rest of the world. Bombing big cities at night and bridges on the Danube, making thousands of civilian casualties.Quote:
Originally Posted by RaceFanStan
well,when's the death sentence for Bush coming along :dozey:
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaceFanStan
Stan, I beg to differ. The CIA was telling Clinton that Saddam had WMD's but Bill didn't want to invade. Was that smart? Maybe, but I think Bush was just going on the info fed to him, and lets face it, he did have a little more motivation to take Saddam down then Clinton.
Bill on the other hand just created uses for the US Navy's arsenal of Tomahawks every time he needed a diversion and people DID die. Just ask those poor buggers wiped out at some of the "terrorist camps" that were targets back then.
No, I wont miss Saddam at all, and I doubt the carnage on the streets of the Sunni dominent parts of Iraq will be less or more now that he is gone. The civil war that is going on at a street level is just an excuse for lawless thugs to kill and maim to suit their own agenda's. What must be said is this. Saddam got his trial. They didn't exactly rubber stamp his conviction, there was a lot of chances for Saddam to justify his actions but the fact remains, no one can say with a straight face that Saddam was doing anything but killing for the sheer point of creating his personal regime of terror.
Saddam's regime was killing close to 20000 people a year by some UN accounts, although of course, the true numbers may never be known. Uday and his brother were thugs in training so if Saddam died before the US invaded, the regime would continue on. Dictators in power to rule a "lawless" country are not superior to the mess they have now in Iraq. At some point, some form of government will get a handle on Iraq, and contrary to popular belief, it will not be an American puppet.
Lets not confuse the hatred some of you have for the US with the reality that is modern Iraq. The Americans didn't have a very good plan or really defendable goals in the court of public opinion, but who really is going to say Iraq was better off with Saddam?? Really, at least people in Iraq have a chance to fight for their freedom now. A democratic system was never going to be on any horizon for the people of Iraq without bloodshed, and while they may not get it this time, it will be at least fought for. Contrary to what you read in much of the press, Basra and the south, and the Kurdish lands to the north have done MUCH better and if there is chaos around the Sunni Triangle, it is the fault of Iraqi's at this point. If the US pulled all their soldiers out 2 mins past the time they caught Saddam, I doubt it would have made a difference. The people of Iraq have to come to the conclusion that they are tired of fighting, and it is obvious to me, that has not happened.
One other point. Capital punishment is not a great way to deal with a criminal. It is cruel, barbaric, and in the opinion of many, inhumane. Tell that to the families of those who lost loved ones to Hussein over the last 20 years. How many people are in that number? How about the ones he fed into recycling plant shredding machines? The women who were brutalized, raped and murdered? All you bleeding hearts out there were very content to look the other way when that was going on but now you cry over a thug being hung? Waste of a good rope if you asked me, I would have just tossed him naked into the streets of a Kurdish town and let them look after him....
I may not advocate Capital Punishment in civilized nations of the west, but in the case of a thug such as this, give me a break. IF they didn't hang his sorry hide, people in that country would keep waiting for him to take over again. They had to see him dead, and it was their courts, their people and their decision. Iam sure the Americans would have just dumped him in Gitmo if they had a choice....IF they really wanted him dead, their Marines would have done the job when he was in the hole...
As much as I was not fully supportive of NATO involvement in the Balkans (and remember that it was a NATO action), I think there are sound reasons as to why there was less opposition to military action then than there were in relation to Iraq. I'm afraid I just don't believe the 'conspiracy theory' in relation to Clinton's reason for supporting that action.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mihai
Yes there were reasons. That's why it was a NATO operation. In Iraq Bush couldn't even get NATO's acceptance. That's why he came up with the Coalition of the "Willing" from largely rather small and impoverished countries who are dependent on the US aid and couldn't afford to say "no thanks".Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Perhaps you should have a look at this table. The "rather small and impoverished countries who are dependent on the US aid" don't form the bulk of the non-US force in Iraq by any means.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
I agree with the first part of your post, though.
Interesting table, quite many have by now already understood, that the WMD was a fairytale, and taken off.
studiose, whats estonias motives to be there? And will your government send more people there, if, how do they sell the idea to the estonians?
Interesting event.. Husein gets executed, but others like Pinochet get prefferential treatment because they served well US (in general) and UK purposes during the Malvinas (Falklands). Even M.Thatcher made comments of sorrow after his death. Ask those who suffered his methods if they feel justices has been made..
And plenty of Argentinian butchers are still running around lughing their heads off. But who cares. Those were pro-western people preserving "freedom" and fighting comunism in that part of the world.
And we people like Castro and, now this goony Chavez.. But hey, we need these guys to justify our defense bugdet.. right??
Left or right, booo to dictatorships.
Husein was a butcher, yes, but so are others, and a blind eye is turned depending on who they served...
It continues to amaze me that anyone even thought for a moment that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, given the fact (and it is a fact) that the Hussein regime was totally emasculated in this respect by the presence of the UN weapons inspectors, who actually did a very good job.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
With this as a starting point for Iraqi justice, how can the country hope to join the ranks of civilised nations in which capital punishment is deemed unacceptable?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa
Same here, really amazing, its also amazing that still about 50% of people of usa belives Iraq had something to do with the bombing of the twin towers, either they are morons or the press is pure crap over there.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
BBC news reporting that someone smuggled a mobile phone into the execution and has released the video onto the web
What gets me is that none of the well paid analysts saw that Iraq would fall into anarchy when Saddam was removed, and if they did, why did no-one care?
Our troops are in Iraq purely to earn the good-will of our new NATO allies, and the government makes no secret of that. Most Estonians believe the war is based on nothing, but accept the presence of our troops. We want to be good, reliable allies. And we want to be become a prosperous and well-known European country. Then, so we hope, we will not be left alone again when Russia attacks again.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomi
That's the bottom line. Our mission in Iraq has been extended until the end of 2007, and it can be extended again. It's the same with Latvia and Lithuania. The Baltic troops are also in Afghanistan and engaged in some of the most dangerous regions.
Another reason for our participation in these missions is, of course, that it's excellent training for our military and a great stimulus for development.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/6220829.stmQuote:
Originally Posted by sxis
It doesn't include the final moment, btw. I'm sure that's somewhere else :)
Thats not really true, here the military intelligence and professors of Islam has predicted everything on spot in advance what will happen in Iraq, they shot down the phony pics too already next morning, usa so proudly presented in UN, before the war.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ian McC
Also here was people from the company that did build the analyse equipment UN used to search the WMD explaining how accurate it was, so it was quite clear there was nothing to find really.