Saddam Hussein Hanged

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Woodeye

Oh come on! Nobody's laughing.

Maybe you should see one of Michael Moore's documents. Oh, but I'm sure you can't. Because those are all just full of lies and left-wing liberals, right?

---

The fat man's stuff is fiction. At the Academy Award, he tried to get his 911 Diatribe in as a documentary, but even the Film Academy (quite leftist) rejected that and placed the film in the fiction category.

Nice try, but no cigar.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gannex

You have to choose the least bad option, and in the 1980's, the least bad option was, arguably, to back Iraq, at least sufficiently to stop the place being taken over by Iran.

---

That's an interesting point. Do you believe Iraq would have been worse off under Iran than under Saddam?

I don't know. It's a close call. What do you think?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gannex

I don't know. It's a close call. What do you think?

---

I don't know, I just know the Sunnis wouldn't have been happy and the place may probably had been a similar mess than it's now. I'm not sure if all the Shiias would have been happy either, many don't like foreign invaders in their country no matter who they are.

I belive it would have been about same that what it is now, a guerilla war, only difference is Iran knows about local customs and manners.

I think the Shia would have preferred Iran to the Ba'athists. At least, under Iranian control, the Shia would have been able to practice their religion, which they were not allowed to do under Saddam. The Shiite holy days could not be observed, and if you remember, after Saddam's fall, the rejoicing on the first Shia, as opposed to Sunni, holiday, was a joy to behold.

But there's no question that the Shia of Iraq would prefer to control their own affairs, over control by either the Iranians or the Ba'athists. They have a wonderful religious leader in al Sistani. This man makes the clerics of Iran look like fools by comparison. In a perfect world, the Shia of Iraq would have been led by al Sistani in a religiously tolerant theocracy. That, I believe, is what the British were hoping for at the beginning of the campaign, but of course it never happened, and now seems certain never to happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gannex

I think the Shia would have preferred Iran to the Ba'athists. At least, under Iranian control, the Shia would have been able to practice their religion, which they were not allowed to do under Saddam. The Shiite holy days could not be observed, and if you remember, after Saddam's fall, the rejoicing on the first Shia, as opposed to Sunni, holiday, was a joy to behold.

But there's no question that the Shia of Iraq would prefer to control their own affairs, over control by either the Iranians or the Ba'athists. They have a wonderful religious leader in al Sistani. This man makes the clerics of Iran look like fools by comparison. In a perfect world, the Shia of Iraq would have been led by al Sistani in a religiously tolerant theocracy. That, I believe, is what the British were hoping for at the beginning of the campaign, but of course it never happened, and now seems certain never to happen.

---

Its very difficult to predict what would have happen, but history tells that normally a war unites the people, because they have a common enemy.
But if that would have happen some of the other Arab countries would have propably got involved also some how.
Many does not seem to understand also on how weak basis almost every government in that area is, meaning the majority of the people wants else than only words from their goverments.

I agree, Tomi. The people of Saudi Arabia do not want to be ruled by Saudi princes, any more than the people of Egypt want Mubarak, or Syrians want Assad. There isn't a democracy anywhere in the Arab world. Which is why it's such a crying shame that it has proved impossible to establish a democracy in Iraq.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gannex

I agree, Tomi. The people of Saudi Arabia do not want to be ruled by Saudi princes, any more than the people of Egypt want Mubarak, or Syrians want Assad. There isn't a democracy anywhere in the Arab world. Which is why it's such a crying shame that it has proved impossible to establish a democracy in Iraq.

---

Have you btw heard any Arab leader comment anything about the hanging of Hussein?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bowler

Isn't that to be expected?

It is hardly news, or news worthy. Everybody who loses a family member feels a sense of loss. All of the bad stuff goes away, and everyone remembers the good.It is a natural part of grieving.

I am not sure what point you are making

---

My point is, everyone who's going to kill somebody, even themselves, should remember that the one dying isn't the only one who will suffer. Heck, the one dying might even be the one who suffers least.