Saddam Hussein Hanged

Eki, maybe they will divide into 3 parts. Saddam held them together at gunpoint and used one group against the other to suit his own purposes. Now they can actually decide to make that decision peacefully if the radicals are taken care of. Dissent and separatist movements are fine well and good when they seek change through the ballot box, refrendum and diplomatic negotation. How anyone can sanction that a full out war unchecked between the three is good is a mystery to me, yet you can bet that is the result if the US gets out now. No, they broke it, they gotta fix is, because they cant buy it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

Gangsta Culture in the US is a unique thing, but hey, this is what happens in an unhibited society where cultural groups are still trying to establish their place. The black culture of the US is tainted by the bad relations with whites going back to that slavery thing, which of course, the US killed more of its soldiers in a Civil war to end slavery than any other war they have been in.

---

It's not only the blacks that are into the "gansta" -thing. It is also the latinos, asians and whites. And hailing guns and violence is common to this culture. So let these punks to have free access to guns? Seems quite irrational to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

As for Iraq and democracy, Woodeye, you are falling into Eki's feeling that the Iraqi's are too stupid or too inferior to get democracy. Never mind 80% of the country voted for the first time where they didn't have Saddam's goons making sure they voted....FOR HIM. Iraq in two elections had a higher turn out than the last 3 or 4 Canadian elections I can remember, and that is in a nation where people were threatened by terrorists on the way to the polls, and polling stations were actually physically under fire at times. You figure out how to deduce that. Afghani's have had two votes now, and again, over 80% turnouts. Both elections were monitored by the UN and seen to be done with proper measures. Don't tell me these people don't deserve to have better rights and freedoms. Don't tell me they don't get democracy.

---

I'm not stating that Iraqi are inferior or stupid or don't get democracy. What I was saying is that there have been no history of working democracy in Iraq. I doubt if it will work this time. And if it doesn't work and for example some religious leaders take control, will US then come back with democracy and liberation?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

The fact is, American interests are those of most nations, in that they want a stable world economy, they don't want threats from terrorists and they want a world where things are predictable. Capitalism works better with trade, not slavery....

---

There's no democracy in China and it is not a barrier for capitalism to work, is it? Crazy dictator is a barrier, but modern communism isn't?
If there is a trade blocks like for North Korea and in Cuba (which is totally stupid and unnecessary btw for Cuba) that will slow down the capitalism, but don't prevent it totally. Where would the real cuban cigars come from otherwise?

It was American interest to prevent communism spreading. That¨s why there still are trade barriers in Cuba. It was American interest to get rid of Saddam, that's why they did it. They are looking to get something out of Iraq, thzt why tehy did it. I'm quite sure Finland wants stable economy as well, but I'm also quite sure that we won't benefit anything even that Saddam is gone now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

Gangsta Culture in the US is a unique thing, but hey, this is what happens in an unhibited society where cultural groups are still trying to establish their place. The black culture of the US is tainted by the bad relations with whites going back to that slavery thing, which of course, the US killed more of its soldiers in a Civil war to end slavery than any other war they have been in.

---

Many of them died also defending slavery. Like I have said before, Abraham Lincoln killed almost 300,000 of his own countrymen:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_civil_war

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Woodeye

I remain sceptical about the US Military bringing the peace, but let's see...

---

I agree with you, Woodeye. I think it is probably impossible for the US to pacify Iraq, even with the addition of 22,000 troops, which is what Bush has decided to do. It is too little, too late.

The problem is that the most violent people, primarily the Mahdi Army of Moqtada al Sadr (Shiite), and the Ba'athist remnants of Saddam's era (Sunni), now see their chance for power, and they know that if the violence stops, their chance at power is ended. Where would the twenty-somethings of the Mahdi Army be if that militia were disbanded or somehow forced to put down their weapons? They'd have no more prestige, no more of the respect that comes from carrying a weapon and a reputation for violence. They'd just be out-of-work young Iraqis, with no excitement in their lives, no feeling of being in the huge sweep of history, no self-image as fearless fighters. It's not an appealing prospect for them. They don't want peace. Peace, for them, would be a disaster.

Similarly for the Sunni insurgents. They have known power of the most intoxicating kind under Saddam. They ruled. What they said went. If someone disrespected them, they knew that person could be killed or tortured, or otherwise beaten into submission. Now they have gone from that to being guerrilla warriors, hunted animals, not only stripped of their power and position, but under threat of being killed or enslaved by the Shiites they used to dominate. Why would they ever choose to give up that fight for survival and a modicum of respect? What's in it for them if peace breaks out?

The ordinary Iraqi, of course, wants to be left in peace, but it is not the will of the ordinary Iraqis that will determine when the violence ends. It is the men of violence who will determine that, and my feeling is that those men want no peace for the reasons I stated.

So what can be done? I believe a massive infusion of troops, not 20,000, but more like a million troops from all across the civilized world, with a soldier on every corner, could do the trick. Militarily, that is possible, but politically it is not. No one, not even the Americans, would stand for it. Not any more. Not after the whole exercise has been so thoroughly discredited.

If massive troop infusions are not politically possible, I see only two other options, the first of which is to declare victory, pull out, and let Iraq disintegrate into a failed state with massive bloodshed. That is the Ted Kennedy option, and I think it is the option that will be chosen, ultimately, after this last gasp effort with the extra 20,000 troops has proved a failure.

The option I would have pursued, if I were Tony Blair, is what I call the Ethnic Cleansing option. The British covertly approach Iraq's Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the most respected Shiite cleric in the world, admired for his wisdom and scholarship by even the most senior Iranian ayatollahs. We offer him a deal: you will be the provincial president of southern Iraq, the leader of the Shiite part of an Iraqi federation, nominally under the umbrella of a federal Iraqi government based in Baghdad, but in practice, virtually autonomous. Your word will be law, but the price you have to pay is that the law enforcement in your province will be provided by Iran, though under your command. Also, you must undertake to use the Iranian muscle to obliterate the Mahdi Army in Baghdad who, though nominally Shiite Muslims, both you and the Iranians know to be led by a "cleric", Moqtada al Sadr, who is in fact no cleric at all, but merely a warlord posing as a saviour of Shiite Islam.

The Iranians are approached, again by the British, and again covertly. They are told that they can extend their influence into southern Iraq, gain a measure of control (which they have long coveted) over the most holy of Shiite sites, but that the price is that their forces must be under the command of al-Sistani, they must be prepared to ruthlessly put down Moqtada al Sadr if he does not submit, and must help defend the Shiites of the north, if al Sadr DOES submit.

Al Sadr himself is told by fatwa, and also by events on the ground, that he must disband his Mahdi Army and be ruled by al-Sistani and his Iranian backers. He must be made aware that if he does not, he and the people he supposedly "protects", will face not only the wrath of the Sunni insurgency, but also the might of Iran.

As for the Kurds, they will be offered a US and British presence, to protect them from the Sunnis, who will be tempted to overreach towards the north once the Shiite threat is neutralised. Turkey will more readily accept a semi-autonomous Iraqi Kurdistan if the British and Americans are there, because we will assure Turkey that our protection of Iraqi Kurdistan will evaporate the minute the Kurds co-operate with Turkish Kurds in a move toward an independent Kurdistan straddling the border between the two countries. So hopefully, the Turks will go along, especially if the arrangement holds out the prospect for them of even greater support for their effort to accede to the European Union.

This will probably lead to a massive refugee movement of Shiites from the Sunni triangle, southwards toward Najaf and Basra. It will result in the de facto partitioning of the country, and an end to Iraq as a united nation. It will mean the extension of Iranian power beyond that nation's own borders, and a new muscularity from the Iranian regime in all areas, especially its drive to build up a nuclear arsenal. It is not, in other words, a good option. But it is better, I believe, than stepping back and watching, from the comfort of our living rooms in the West, as Iraq descends into the abyss.

Originally Posted by Woodeye
The fact only is that more guns bring more violence.

:) John Lott's Research has shown exactly the opposite. Similarly, as the states have adopted right to carry laws, violent crime has dropped in all of those states. OTOH, violent crime is highest in places like DC that have the toughest gun control laws.

This was the main point in Moore's document also. If everyone have free access to guns, it is easy to predict that this will bring problems. Not everyone will behave like they should with firearms. If you need money and you don't have it, it is easy to predict what is going to happen when instead of money you happen to have a criminal mind and a Smith & Wesson in your pocket.

:) So you wish to restrict the rights of the honest and ethical because there are unethical criminals in society. Curious approach.

In Finland you can own or get a gun if you have a good reason getting one. Police permits the rights to get one and you should be able to prove that you are going to need it for hunting or sports. Usually you need to be a member of a hunting club or shooting club. Guns should be in a locked place in houses and they are not to be used in self defence. Never.

:) The United States Constitution was written to replace the Articles of Confederation. The major weakness in the Constitution was the lack of articles that addressed individual rights, so Hamilton, Jay and Madison wrote the Bill of Rights, and used the writings of Publius to explain the documents. Here in the United States, we have a fundamental right to protect ourselves and our family. Guns are used in self defense because we refuse to be victims. One of the fundamental differences between citizens and slaves is that slave cannot own weapons, but citizens can.

Eki, I dont need your Wiki post to know what the Civil war is and more than 300000 K died. I also know that he didn't kill them, he did it to enforce an unlawful succession and seizure of US property. No matter, don't get me going on the US Civil War, I studied as a hobby for years.

As for your feelings Woodeye, US law and constitution is based on rights for everyone, even for morons, and you are right, more than just blacks are in the Gangsta culture, but it is young blacks that are by far the most caught up in a vicious cycle. If they didn't use guns to kill each other, they would use knives.

Communism works with Capitalism no where really. China has kept the name Communism, but the reality of it is that Marx would be horrified by what has happened to his theories in China. What we have in China is a full out economic engine being fed by cubic yards of money, low wages, no benefits and a populace willing to take the fact they have little recourse for civil liberties past having possessions and some limited rights to travel. China is not a democracy, but I think in time, their leaders may have on do a Gorbachev and bring reforms to give the people the social and populist liberities they deserve. IF the Chinese had stuck to Mao's model, the country would have collapased years ago.

As for the US hatnig and blocking off Communism, well in a way, Castro wouldn't know what to do with the US if THEY did open up relations with him. Castro deals with the rest of us ( Canadians fly there all the time for cheapie holidays in gated resorts) while saying how the embargo has hurt his island. Dirty little secret is, the rest of the western world trades with him, but the only things he has done with his trade is create more low tech jobs, educated doctors and control every aspect of society. Would it make a difference if the US did business with Cuba? Absolutely, but the Cuban exiles in Florida, NY and around the country would go nuts, and politically, no US politician wants to mess with that now.

One more point. Castro is on America's doorstep. 90 miles south of Key West Florida. Now he wouldn't be able to affect change in America, and he wouldn't invade, so the Americans really have not really tried to remove him. The Bay of Pig's affair was a clumsy mistake on Kennedy's part to let Cuban exiles work with the CIA of maybe toppling Castro. AT that point, Fidel was already cozying up to the Russians, and that made America nervous. As the Cuban Missile crisis proved, they had a right to be. Now that all that is history, Castro and the embargo against him are more or less a relic of history. It is sad how Cuba has just stagnated, other than the resorts catering to the Europeans and Canadians visiting, but there is no freedom for the people there beyond a basic level.

Woodeye, you brought up the point freedom is no requirement for captialism, and that is true as in China. The thing is, what made Iraq unique was not only the closed society, the total control of the government and oppression of those living there, but the total corruption of all the wealth being tailored to suit Saddam's needs. He used all the money for his own gain, or to embolden the strength of his regime, both in the military and the bureaucracy.

That alone wouldn't draw anyone's attention past condemenation, but you couple that with 2 invasions of oil producing neighbours to steal their oil fields, use and work on WMD's ( he had gas to use on Iran and the Kurd's so to say he didn't have them when the UN was looking is not exactly something anyone can say 100&#37 ;) .

Saddam was the worst type of dictator. He didn't stay on his own playground and he was making a play to be a power broker. Listen, Kim Il Sung is a bigger slime ball to his own people then even Saddam, but the US leaves him alone partially to keep the peace with China, and partially because he hasn't really been a real threat. He makes a lot of noise, but everyone knows he is likely to do nothing. Saddam didn't have that restraint. If he had left Iran and Kuwait alone, he would be in power today, or until his people found a way to be rid of him. Saddam could not be trusted to be left alone, and when put under the watch of the UN, he resisted to the point that if sanctions and resolutions were to have any meeting, someone was going to have to call his bluff. We have been around this so many times and yet you guys resist the reality.

Saddam had been a threat in the past, and he could be in the future. What is more, when confronted with the reality that the world didn't trust him, he acted like he had something to hide. I wouldnt' trust Saddam and neither would you on a personal level. He was no ordinary thug. Those the US knows are not threats so while they may find them repulsive or a pain the rear, they cant fix every nation. Iraq, well it was run by an idiot. Anyone provoking the Americans when they had their blood up after 9/11 was just a fool.....

You Finn's have made your point that you think the US shouldn't have been there. I say they had probable cause to not trust this guy and they wanted to make a positive change in the Middle East. I have documented over and over again that Saddam was killing his own people at a rate that dwarfs the collaterial deaths by the Americans. What is more, his violence was aimed at them, the Americans were just trying to defeat a military who kept the people enslaved.

Gannex, the Iranian option is no option. Not this Iran. Not with the president threatening his own nuclear options in the future, and a promise to take out Israel in fire or the whole world if you like. He believes in the Madhi coming, and that is the end of the world or Armageddon coming. No, giving him any more clout in that part of the world really is NOT an option.

Al-Sistani may have some pull with Iran now, but he will be swallowed up by people willing to use Islam to more nefarious plans.

Will extra troops help? You are likely correct they need way more. Intelligence estimates in the Pentagon told Rumsfeld they needed 500000 and they didn't listen to them. So now Bush ups it 20000 while they really have to lean on the local army and police to step up. IF THEY do their part, then this can happen. It is the vacuum of the Iraqi government to do more than let the Americans be the target that is part of the issue.

You are also correct that likely, the US will be out of there in two years. At that point, they will have had a go at rebuilding the nation for 3 more years than it took to rebuild Germany and Japan.

I agree with most of your assessments in that the Shiites in the south were not handled properly, but the Brits better not be talking to the Iranians in a tough manner about their nuclear program while saying under the table they can run the show in southern Iraq. This is just not an option I think anyone would want. I guess though it may be a very weak alternative to bloodshed.

I think though if the Americans pulled out, Iraq would split in 3. The south MAY end up part of the Iranian universe anyhow, but you know it wouldn't be long before friction started caused by the Iranians and the Sunni's in the middle of the country. A lot of the strife now is being fed by Iran, so what you proscribe HAPPENS. Sealing off the border with Iran should have been a more urgent and properly assessed threat.

No, a lot of the critcism the Finn's here have had is that they KNEW this was going to happen. Well, they were guessing, but the Americans by omission or incompetance (Bush admitted they have messed this up) have created the unstablity. To allow Iran to pour gas on the fire to get THEIR results shouldn't be rewarded. I would rather the Iraqis get it out of their system without Iranian interference....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

Not with the president threatening his own nuclear options in the future, and a promise to take out Israel in fire or the whole world if you like.

---

I haven't heard him say that. He has only said Israel should be wiped off the map, or something like that, and I agree with him. Not through nuclear or other weapons of course, but through politics and diplomacy. Those who have emigrated to Israel should pack up and go back where they came from. How stupid it was to emigrate to the Middle East when the situation was like it was? I think Israel is as useless as DDR was and North Korea still is.

Aqwii, what our Finnish friends cant get is that in the US, rights and freedoms are given to the citizen, and it is his responsiblity to use it in a responsible manner. If he does not, he then falls afoul of the state. In just about every other democratic system in the world, the state grants you those rights and freedoms and reserves the right to take them away as needed to for the "good" of society. It is a every so slight difference, but I think in America, the system is set up to never trust government implicitly.

In Canada the slogan that was around at our Confederation was "Peace, order and Good Government". In America, it was "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" Little has changed in a sense. Both countries work, and the Canadian model is simliar to the European modern states, but the attitude towards trusting government is a lot less in the US. The Finn's don't see it is not the state's job to make sure you are personally responsible in your actions. I am not uncertain there isn't some sort of middle ground that isnt' being walked on here....lol..but that is me, the silly Canadian who wants everyone to get along!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by agwiii

:) Here in the United States, we have a fundamental right to protect ourselves and our family. Guns are used in self defense because we refuse to be victims. One of the fundamental differences between citizens and slaves is that slave cannot own weapons, but citizens can.

---

Over here in Europe we are still slaves because not all of us have weapons, we only got running water and electricity last winter ! :rolleyes:


I thought this thread was about Saddams Execution :?: