Saddam Hussein Hanged

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

I think Estonia has experienced that kind of governments. But maybe Studiose is so young that he has forgotten.

---

Eh? :confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mihai

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 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 studiose

Eh? :confused:

---

Were not the Estonian governments between 1940 to 1991 influenced by the Soviet Union (= foreign invaders and occupiers)?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eki

Were not the Estonian governments between 1940 to 1991 influenced by the Soviet Union (= foreign invaders and occupiers)?

---

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 studiose

I think there are plenty of examples, for instance West Germany after WW2.

---

Germany had just lost a war, it was spiltted up by the winners, hardly a democratic process by any standards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tomi

Germany had just lost a war, it was spiltted up by the winners, hardly a democratic process by any standards.

---

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 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?

---

In democracy and free clections any citizen can candidate, in Iraq this was not the case.

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.

---

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).

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tomi

Germany had just lost a war, it was spiltted up by the winners, hardly a democratic process by any standards.

---

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

In democracy and free clections any citizen can candidate, in Iraq this was not the case.

---

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.