Printable View
I think that answers your first question. Different countries have different punishments.Quote:
Originally Posted by studiose
I'm sure you as an Estonian don't understand all aspects of the Iraqi mentality. In Iraq much of the population want to kill their neighbours who want to kill them. A dictator must be REALLY brutal to stand out from the brutality of an ordinary Joe (or should I say Ahmed) and rise up as the winner.
I'm quite sure the police under Saddam's rule didn't get a court order and a note from Saddam every time they wanted to kill someone either.Quote:
Originally Posted by studiose
Are you, by any chance, aware of some instances of police violence in Iraq and are trying to give the impression that the current Iraqi administration is just as oppressive as the previous one?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
Indeed, if the killing of these 148 people was carried out according to the laws of Iraq at that time, my argument would be severely weakened. Was it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
I think he just ordered his security forces to squelch an uprising. That could happen without a court order in any country experiencing a revolution and still be perfectly legal. Did the security forces use unnecessary force to complete their task? Possibly or maybe even probably.Quote:
Originally Posted by studiose
Unstable yes, but far from a democracy, or in how many democracys forming of government does foregin countries, in this case occuping forces get involved usually?Quote:
Originally Posted by studiose
I don't like executions but I believe that this is an important step in re-establishing law and order in Iraq. Most of you were born in democratic countries and you are not aware of one aspect in dictatorships.
Saddam led his country for so long and so successfully because he was feared by the all the people in the structures of power (the punishment was very often death for insubordonation). The fear accumulated over the years (especially that the population isn't very educated - you can lead better uneducated individuals) becoming a myth among his people.
Even when he was detained by the Americans, these poeple that still kept an influence among their ethnic groups still feared Saddam. They thought it's still possible for Saddam to make a hocus-pocus and return to power. And the consequences would have been dramatic for those who joined forces with the US-led coalition or the new Iraqi police. So it was necessary to send them a clear message: SADDAM IS NEVER GONNA RETURN.
It was the same situation 17 years ago during the Romanian revolution. Communist dictator Ceausescu was trialed (in record time) and executed for the same reason: he was feared by those who were leading important sectors of the Army or the economy. They shot him avoiding to hit his face so that everyone could see him dead on TV. He wasn't going to return to power. A reformist from the second row of the communist party assumed power in the country and everyone felt secure, joining the democracy. This is how it works!
I think you're trying to confuse. An uprising is a large popular movement whose aim is to replace the ruling regime with a new one. An assassination attempt is an action of under-ground rebels whose aim is to eliminate one (or a few) most hated member(s) of the ruling regime.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eki
What happened in Dujail in 1982 was as similar to an uprising as a cat is to a tomato.
I think Estonia has experienced that kind of governments. But maybe Studiose is so young that he has forgotten.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomi
I think there are plenty of examples, for instance West Germany after WW2.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomi