Saddam Hussein Hanged

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

The orders were followed because the US military knows darn well they have to have principles to preserve life when there are civilian non-combantants involved.

---

Seems to be lots of cases arising where the military are blaming incidents like the ones outlined in the following article as being perpetrated by insurgents.
How many have been covered up?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...063000495.html

"In June, seven Marines and a Navy corpsman were charged with murder and other crimes related to the shooting death of a crippled man in Hamdaniya, west of Baghdad. Residents there said the soldiers planted a rifle and a shovel near the victim's body to make it look as if he had been burying roadside bombs."
"Later in June, three soldiers were charged with murdering three Iraqi detainees in U.S. custody and threatening to kill another soldier who saw the incident. And last week, two Pennsylvania National Guardsmen were charged with murder in the shooting death of an unarmed man in the western city of Ramadi and with trying to cover up the crime."

If anyone is interested in reading what is going on in Baghdad from a locals point of view I can highly recommend the following blog written by a very well educated Iragi female.

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cossie16

Seems to be lots of cases arising where the military are blaming incidents like the ones outlined in the following article as being perpetrated by insurgents.
How many have been covered up?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...063000495.html

"In June, seven Marines and a Navy corpsman were charged with murder and other crimes related to the shooting death of a crippled man in Hamdaniya, west of Baghdad. Residents there said the soldiers planted a rifle and a shovel near the victim's body to make it look as if he had been burying roadside bombs."
"Later in June, three soldiers were charged with murdering three Iraqi detainees in U.S. custody and threatening to kill another soldier who saw the incident. And last week, two Pennsylvania National Guardsmen were charged with murder in the shooting death of an unarmed man in the western city of Ramadi and with trying to cover up the crime."

---

IN your last paragraph quoted, there are two soldiers who are being CHARGED by the US authorities. In Saddam's Iraq, they would either get no trial and a bullet, or a promotion depending on the whims of Saddam. Hardly an argument for Iraq being a better place under Saddam.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cossie16

That fine specimen of US womanhood Lindy England joined the military because she couldn't get a job doing anything else. This I believe is a major reason why a lot of people join the forces. Then they get upset when the get posted overseas and run the risk of getting killed.

---

Of course everyone who joins the military in the US is NOT Lindy England. But taking one example out of 150000 soldiers and painting them all the same works for your agenda. Problem is, it isn't indicative of the truth of why many join the Military. Also add in the fact that Lindy is in jail for her role in the humiliation of the Iraqi prisoners held at Abu Gahrab. The US government did NOT order nor condone it. Little details like that add some structure and validity to my argument of course that the Americans are trying to do the right thing. Very few military operations of this size and scope don't have a few people crossing outside the lines of human decency; how you judge the society that produced them is how they are dealt with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cossie16

An interesting comment coming from someone who has labeled anyone arguing against you as being 'trendy left wingers'. A fairly broad statement wouldn't you say. I have never said that Saddam was not evil, however I have and always will question the reasons why Iraq was picked on and not say Saudi Arabia where it has been proved that most of the money supporting Al Quaida comes from.
There are lots of nasty dictatorships in the world, however the us is only interested in getting involved when it is in their economic interest to.
Why haven't they invaded Burma for example, perhaps because The Peoples Republic of China is a major backer of the Junta there? They did try to organise a coup against Chavez however that came back to bite them.
Bush is a stooge, he had to finish his daddies war, even though as I have stated previously that US told Saddam that they would not get involved if Iraq invaded Kuwait.

---

I never said you did say Saddam was not evil Cossie, but the excuses people such as Eki have made to keep him in power have been astounding at times, and there are many who have opposed me that have ignored his excesses in their arguments as much as possible. I am glad you show concern for Saudi Arabia's tremendous oppression, and Burma's ridiculous human rights record. How about those lovely Chinese in Tibet? Their backing of North Korea? Sudan's oppressed black minority that is being tormented by the Janijiweed in Darfur?

No, they are valid points, I have been one of the few people to bring them up and yet I am the rabid right winger. No, I think the US military could have taken care of Burma and Saudi Arabia before finishing breakfast but what would the world say? IF they take this much heat for taking out a vicious thug who continued to jerk around the UN and anyone else he could lay his hands on, how much would the Islamic world condemn them deposing an autocratic ruling family like the Saudi's run? Going into Burma would be aggraivating the Chinese to the point of war. Ditto for North Korea. Iraq had no real backing, and they were aggravating enough, so Bush went in there. Finishing Bush Daddies war? Hey, you cant suck and blow all the time Cossie, for I suspect you are dondemning the US for NOT following the UN in staying out this time, yet Bush Sr. did obey the UN in the last war. He gave them the options and opportunity to save Saddam's sorry @ss. You cant have it both ways, but as I have seen, there are some on here that try.

I have been 100% consistent in my views for the last two weeks. I am against the death penalty in almost all cases, but in this one, it had to be carried out. I was against the invasion of Iraq only based on the fact I think a better argument wasn't used, and there was no firm plan on rebulding Iraq. I have been 100% consistent to never condone thuggery in the name of "justice" but I also understand nation states do things that make no sense if not taken in the larger context. I have been 100% consistent that war is a terrible option and almost never is justified, but if there is no option war, diplomacy with people less than honest as leaders (truly dishonest, not a guy who lied on raising your taxes who you can vote out next year) wont work. 1938 proved that, as did Stalin's pact with Hitler (of course, those two deserve a place in hell, but Hitler even stabbed Stalin in the back, showing there is no honour among thieves). Iraq was singled out because they could not be trusted to be ressponsible to anyone, their neighbours, the UN, their own people. Saddam pushed all the right buttons to give someone as simple minded and determined as George W Bush enough rope to hang him with (no pun intended). Saddam could have just let the UN do their thing, and calmed down, and he would still be in power today.

As for Chavez and the supposed coup, I think a lot of that is Venezuelan hot air and fiction. Chavez has been making hay out of any thing he can that makes the US look like bad guys, while selling them 14% of the US's imported oil needs. If the US was really the bad guys you say they are, they would have invaded Venezuela. Of course, they wouldn't. My argument has always been elected leaders, no matter how obnoxious have no worries from invasion from the US. Take away the criminally stupid intervention of the CIA against Allende in Chile in the 70's, and the US has basically let any criticism of their nation go until someone like Saddam decides to back it up with threats, supporting Hamas and other groups, and invading Kuwait. No, at some point, the most ardent opponents of the US who have any respect for democracy have to say Iraq really went out of their way to aggravate the US. It was not an unwarranted and unjust sudden decision. It was over 11 years and two presidents in the making....

I was too late to edit the above post, however Riverbend has had her writings published, more information here:

http://www.marionboyars.co.uk/Amy%20...20Burning.html

A second book has been published, info from Amazon.

http://www.amazon.com/Baghdad-Burnin.../dp/1558614893

Hi Mark:

Well, the cowards continue to pour negative points on me for disagreeing with their support of their beloved dictator, Saddam, the Butcher of Bagdad. I see from your "red" rep, the cowards have been after you too. Well, we have a phrase that covers this. Perhaps you've encountered it in your travels into the lower 48. So to E**, I say, f*** you if you can't take a joke.

:rotflmao:

P.S., It was once believed that if you put 1,000,000 monkeys in a room with typewriters, they would produce the great works, given enough time. The Internet proves that notion wrong. With only a few exceptions here, those monkeys cannot come up with an original thought. I'm glad to see you and Gannex are persevering here, but I am tired of slumming.

When are you coming down for that drink? We're into winter now - we had a low of 65, but it bounded back to 81 in the early afternoon.

:beer:

:vodka: (I know there's no smiley for vodka, but I can dream.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cossie16

If anyone is interested in reading what is going on in Baghdad from a locals point of view I can highly recommend the following blog written by a very well educated Iragi female.

http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/

---

I will read it and probably not disagree with thing being crappy on the ground in Baghdad. I however put the blame on the religious and political rivalry between Sunni and Shiite down for most of the misery. If the US soldiers didn't spend most of their time trying to keep some sort of peace, life would go a lot easier. Also understand that the Kurd's and Shiites in the south are doing ok, and are getting on with their lives. All of Iraq is not like Baghdad. SO I will read this blog...and see what it has to say. I wont likely disagree with here feelings, they are hers, and she lives there, not me. I also have stated this many times, that it is easier for the arm chair critics to condemn people to live in Iraq when Saddam was running it, but this lady wouldn't be running a blog on the net under his Iraq either. The right to complain and participate in the world of public ideas is one they have now, so I welcome this blog. Some would tell you Cossie that Saddam's right to oppress these people over rides the rights of the people to have a shot at freedom, no matter what.

I wont get into specifics, but at a quick glance, her blog is filled with a lot of thoughts that go way beyond the common Iraqi on the street. Her education in English says to me she was one of the privledged few before Saddam fell. Her account of Saddam's "lynching" is interesting, for at no time has she said anything about how she felt about Saddam's regime in a negative fashion.

I feel she is an interesting voice, one I have book marked but her view is not the definative view of Iraq. Nor is it inaccurate either. It is her view, and while it backs many of the arguments of some of my opponents, the fact it is being voiced in such a manner as a "blog" was not available to anyone in Iraq 4 years ago. Also much of what is going on is being done by Iraqi's. The Americans are giving them that freedom to screw up I guess. If she wants no sectarian violence on the streets, I guess the Americans would have to crack down so tight no one would have any rights? She would like that? I suspect not.

No, an interesting blog, I will read it, and see what she thinks, but as to her biases and views, I take it with some measure of skepticism. Her education and use of English and her opinion says to me she is a Sunni who had been part of the privledged few. She reminds me of an Iranian immigrant I know in Canada who spoke well of the Shah. He thought the country was ok under the Shah too, but as the Revolution in 1979 proved, there was something seriously wrong on the ground in that nation. It is sad that that revolution that started by the grassroots has ended up in a theocratic dictatorship.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

I however put the blame on the religious and political rivalry between Sunni and Shiite down for most of the misery.

---

That rivalry existed long before the invasion, it was well known and this kind of outcome was predicted, yet they decided to invade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark in Oshawa

It is her view, and while it backs many of the arguments of some of my opponents, the fact it is being voiced in such a manner as a "blog" was not available to anyone in Iraq 4 years ago.

---

I remember the "Baghdad Blogger" who reported from Baghdad while it was bombed in 2003:

http://weblogs.about.com/od/bestofbl.../salampax2.htm

On How Salam Pax Started Blogging:

It wasn't until 2001 when the Internet became available in Iraq.

Even by 2002, when I got home access to the Internet, it was considered unusual. And, in the beginning, I didn't know what to do with it.

Then, I discovered weblogs. It's good because they seem like small windows in to how people are living and thinking in the outside world.

I also realized that there's nothing coming from the Arab world. So, I thought I'd start one. To give something back to the blogging community.

Also, it seems like a nice way of communicating with people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cossie16

That fine specimen of US womanhood Lindy England joined the military because she couldn't get a job doing anything else. This I believe is a major reason why a lot of people join the forces. Then they get upset when the get posted overseas and run the risk of getting killed.

---

I agree with you, cossie, that there are some who join the US armed forces because they cannot get jobs anywhere else. This is becoming more the case today than it was five years ago, because recruitment standards are dropping. The pressure to keep manning this badly conceived and dreadfully executed war are taking their toll on the quality of the force, I will agree. But this does not shake my conviction that, on the whole, the US forces are made up of decent people.

Lynndie England was, of course, a disgrace, but I do not put all the blame on her shoulders. I think the leadership must share responsibility for the disgusting way she and her partner in crime behaved. They say a fish stinks from the head, so it is instructive to see what the head of this particular fish, the army, was doing.

First, Bush and his advisers, relying on legal loopholes, declared that the Geneva Convention was not applicable to non-uniformed persons captured in the theatre of war, very broadly defined. Secretary Rumsfeld then cemented in place the impression that the norms of decent treatment should not apply in the Iraqi conflict by his continual statements to the effect that all necessary means should be used to ensure the safety of the troops. Torture, said Rumsfeld, did not include techniques designed to put physical and emotional stress on suspects, and suspects, said the DOD, could be virtually anyone. These messages went to the Generals and down the chain of command. At one point, the CIA complained that the Army had been given TOO MUCH AUTHORITY (!!), that when the agency had pressed for relaxation of the rules of interrogation, they never intended that cabbies in Baghdad would be rounded up and interrogated by privates in Abu Ghraib. The British were highly critical of the cavalier approach to the rules that their American allies were taking in their sector, but all this made no difference to the administration and, through the administration, to the top brass. There were one or two generals who opposed the general drift toward extreme heavy-handedness, notably Lt. Gen. Petraeus, but these were lone voices crying against the wind. Only now, has the wisdom of Petraeus's counsel been acknowledged, but at the time of Lynndie England's atrocities, the atmosphere coming from above was one of condoning, even encouraging, brutal behaviour.

This is why I said, in my earlier post pleading with people not to judge the American forces too harshly, that they are decent, honourable men and women who have been let down by the leadership, badly led, misguided. The boots on the ground are good; the men with the policy decisions in their hands have been awful, and I find it very hard to forgive the top US people for the way they have conducted this war, which could have liberated Iraq, and been a glorious page in the history of the West. Now, all it is is an ugly stain.