who is the kangaroo court you are referring to? is this not the iraqis court? Yes.
does this statement not imply the international court takes precedent over the iraqis court? No.
i dispute your claim that stable regimes in general recognize functional immunity - if the accused is a mass murderer..and where is this claim of mine which you dispute? You invent what I said when you run out of steam. I didn't say anything of the sort.
Death For Saddam
Death For Saddam
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Death For Saddam
spot;453500 wrote: Not in my case. I'm content with just international intervention. That's not what happened here. Iraq was invaded unilaterally, without UN authority, on the basis of a string of what turned out to be deliberately concocted lies told by a self-interested factional administration which is still pulling the strings. All of which is unacceptable.
And I would be thoroughly upset with such intervention had I not felt that Iraqs social structure needed liberation, and even then upon my own understanding may have administered a different approach.
I still have hope for Iraq, and to just give up will only make things worse.
And I would be thoroughly upset with such intervention had I not felt that Iraqs social structure needed liberation, and even then upon my own understanding may have administered a different approach.
I still have hope for Iraq, and to just give up will only make things worse.
Death For Saddam
spot;453500 wrote: Not in my case. I'm content with just international intervention. That's not what happened here. Iraq was invaded unilaterally, without UN authority, on the basis of a string of what turned out to be deliberately concocted lies told by a self-interested factional administration which is still pulling the strings. All of which is unacceptable.
Oh please, unilateral? As I recall your country participated as well as others. No UN authority? This is at least arguable under UN Security Council Resolution 1441. The notion of deliberate lies is unproven..
Oh please, unilateral? As I recall your country participated as well as others. No UN authority? This is at least arguable under UN Security Council Resolution 1441. The notion of deliberate lies is unproven..
You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say will be misquoted, then used against you.
Death For Saddam
K.Snyder;453509 wrote: And I would be thoroughly upset with such intervention had I not felt that Iraqs social structure needed liberation, and even then upon my own understanding may have administered a different approach.
I still have hope for Iraq, and to just give up will only make things worse.You feel Iraq is a better place to live now than it was before it was "liberated"?
I still have hope for Iraq, and to just give up will only make things worse.You feel Iraq is a better place to live now than it was before it was "liberated"?
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Death For Saddam
K.Snyder;453482 wrote: No I don't condone any unjust killings at all...
And I certainly wouldn't favor leaving Saddam Hussein in power over a flock of sheep. When I see a social structure that desperately needs to be reformed I am not hesitant in showing my approval, especially when that social structure is on the brink of famine, and blatant mass murder. But to some I suppose that's just acceptable politics, so as not to stir the bees nest?
How is it that the Iraqi's went from "a flock of sheep" to ruthless terrorists overnight?
It seems their nature changes depending on the needs of the discussion. I guess Saddam kept them sheep-like and now the US has unleashed the wolf that was hiding within the sheep suit?
And I certainly wouldn't favor leaving Saddam Hussein in power over a flock of sheep. When I see a social structure that desperately needs to be reformed I am not hesitant in showing my approval, especially when that social structure is on the brink of famine, and blatant mass murder. But to some I suppose that's just acceptable politics, so as not to stir the bees nest?
How is it that the Iraqi's went from "a flock of sheep" to ruthless terrorists overnight?
It seems their nature changes depending on the needs of the discussion. I guess Saddam kept them sheep-like and now the US has unleashed the wolf that was hiding within the sheep suit?
Death For Saddam
spot;453524 wrote: You feel Iraq is a better place to live now than it was before it was "liberated"?
I don't feel its been liberated at all...
My idea of liberation doesn't consist of that of a wave from a magic wand.
I don't feel its been liberated at all...
My idea of liberation doesn't consist of that of a wave from a magic wand.
Death For Saddam
koan;453552 wrote: How is it that the Iraqi's went from "a flock of sheep" to ruthless terrorists overnight?
It seems their nature changes depending on the needs of the discussion. I guess Saddam kept them sheep-like and now the US has unleashed the wolf that was hiding within the sheep suit?
Could you find anywhere that I refered to the average "Iraqi" to that of a flock of sheep?
All I said was that I wouldn't trust him with power over that of a flock of sheep...no implication, other than Saddam is an immoral person in my opinion.
It seems their nature changes depending on the needs of the discussion. I guess Saddam kept them sheep-like and now the US has unleashed the wolf that was hiding within the sheep suit?
Could you find anywhere that I refered to the average "Iraqi" to that of a flock of sheep?
All I said was that I wouldn't trust him with power over that of a flock of sheep...no implication, other than Saddam is an immoral person in my opinion.
Death For Saddam
K.Snyder;453558 wrote: Could you find anywhere that I refered to the average "Iraqi" to that of a flock of sheep?
All I said was that I wouldn't trust him with power over that of a flock of sheep...no implication, other than Saddam is an immoral person in my opinion.
Thank you for changing your statement.
All I said was that I wouldn't trust him with power over that of a flock of sheep...no implication, other than Saddam is an immoral person in my opinion.
Thank you for changing your statement.
Death For Saddam
koan;453552 wrote: I guess Saddam kept them sheep-like and now the US has unleashed the wolf that was hiding within the sheep suit?
That statement may hold ground, if the U.S were there to purposely kill and mass murder Iraqis...
No my idea of protecting "sheep" is to allow an unbiased social structure based on equal opportunity rights that go hand in hand with a stable economy...
More like Saddam kept them caged like a chicken coupe.
That statement may hold ground, if the U.S were there to purposely kill and mass murder Iraqis...
No my idea of protecting "sheep" is to allow an unbiased social structure based on equal opportunity rights that go hand in hand with a stable economy...
More like Saddam kept them caged like a chicken coupe.
Death For Saddam
koan;453562 wrote: Thank you for changing your statement.
I didn't change any statement...I just elaborated on what you had misinterpreted.
Wait I'm sorry...yes I did change my statement.
I re-read my original post and seen that I left out the word even...
I should have said
"I certainly wouldn't leave Saddam Hussein in power even over a flock of sheep"...
I'm sorry,..I understand how someone could have read that as if I were referring to the Iraqis as sheep, and I wouldn't be that disrespectfull.
I still meant it in the same way I said it...just bad grammer perhaps.
I didn't change any statement...I just elaborated on what you had misinterpreted.
Wait I'm sorry...yes I did change my statement.
I re-read my original post and seen that I left out the word even...
I should have said
"I certainly wouldn't leave Saddam Hussein in power even over a flock of sheep"...
I'm sorry,..I understand how someone could have read that as if I were referring to the Iraqis as sheep, and I wouldn't be that disrespectfull.
I still meant it in the same way I said it...just bad grammer perhaps.
Death For Saddam
K.Snyder;453563 wrote: That statement may hold ground, if the U.S were there to purposely kill and mass murder Iraqis...
No my idea of protecting "sheep" is to allow an unbiased social structure based on equal opportunity rights that go hand in hand with a stable economy...
More like Saddam kept them caged like a chicken coupe.
I think the use of the word sheep in this story is all together a bad idea...either calling them that prior to invasion or infering that is what they will become.
No my idea of protecting "sheep" is to allow an unbiased social structure based on equal opportunity rights that go hand in hand with a stable economy...
More like Saddam kept them caged like a chicken coupe.
I think the use of the word sheep in this story is all together a bad idea...either calling them that prior to invasion or infering that is what they will become.
Death For Saddam
add in that introducing the concept of chicken is just as poor an inclination...see the Brave Hamas fighters thread for elaboration of why.
Death For Saddam
'ol Saddam he had a farm
E-I-E-I-O
E-I-E-I-O
Death For Saddam
koan;453566 wrote: add in that introducing the concept of chicken is just as poor an inclination...see the Brave Hamas fighters thread for elaboration of why.
Yeah right,..we all know the power the people had in voicing their opinions. (Sarcasm)
Are you guys saying that the Iraqi living condition with Saddam Hussein still in power was acceptable, and unworthy of reform then?
Yeah right,..we all know the power the people had in voicing their opinions. (Sarcasm)
Are you guys saying that the Iraqi living condition with Saddam Hussein still in power was acceptable, and unworthy of reform then?
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
Death For Saddam
K.Snyder;453570 wrote: Are you guys saying that the Iraqi living condition with Saddam Hussein still in power was acceptable, and unworthy of reform then?
I've been thinking about this, off and on.... what have the Iraqis, or anyone else,
actually gained by this action? Is there anything *at all*?
I've been thinking about this, off and on.... what have the Iraqis, or anyone else,
actually gained by this action? Is there anything *at all*?
Death For Saddam
If all the Iraqis were happy with life in Iraq when Suddam was in power and didn't want us over there, then I wouldn't want to be over there either.
Death For Saddam
Bill Sikes;453573 wrote: I've been thinking about this, off and on.... what have the Iraqis, or anyone else,
actually gained by this action? Is there anything *at all*?
That goes back to my post that I don't feel like the "action" is even close to being finished, so therefore I can't speculate given recent evidence...Doesn't mean I shouldn't be optimistic, should it?
And if their plan is incapable of progression then that is their fault not mine...doesn't mean I am against the right decision in any given instance.
actually gained by this action? Is there anything *at all*?
That goes back to my post that I don't feel like the "action" is even close to being finished, so therefore I can't speculate given recent evidence...Doesn't mean I shouldn't be optimistic, should it?
And if their plan is incapable of progression then that is their fault not mine...doesn't mean I am against the right decision in any given instance.
Death For Saddam
K.Snyder;453570 wrote: Yeah right,..we all know the power the people had in voicing their opinions. (Sarcasm)
Are you guys saying that the Iraqi living condition with Saddam Hussein still in power was acceptable, and unworthy of reform then?
I've yet to see convincing evidence that they asked anyone to come remove Saddam for them. A poll perhaps? An open letter written by some distraught citizen? While I'm sure that some of them are happy about the way things were handled, if it's democracy the US is promoting then there ought to be some sort of a percentage poll performed before action was taken.
but, we must recall, the need of the people was not actually the reason for the war until the WMDs pulled an MIA
Are you guys saying that the Iraqi living condition with Saddam Hussein still in power was acceptable, and unworthy of reform then?
I've yet to see convincing evidence that they asked anyone to come remove Saddam for them. A poll perhaps? An open letter written by some distraught citizen? While I'm sure that some of them are happy about the way things were handled, if it's democracy the US is promoting then there ought to be some sort of a percentage poll performed before action was taken.
but, we must recall, the need of the people was not actually the reason for the war until the WMDs pulled an MIA
Death For Saddam
koan;453579 wrote: I've yet to see convincing evidence that they asked anyone to come remove Saddam for them. A poll perhaps? An open letter written by some distraught citizen? While I'm sure that some of them are happy about the way things were handled, if it's democracy the US is promoting then there ought to be some sort of a percentage poll performed before action was taken.
but, we must recall, the need of the people was not actually the reason for the war until the WMDs pulled an MIA
That can go either way...
In the same way you are asking for a poll as a means of acceptance, one may say they have yet to see a poll that would illustrate quite plainly their discontent.
You have to look at the evidence. Upon any outcry of foreign aid, saddam would have his people killed for speaking out against him. And to be honest, if the Iraqi people didn't want us over there, then I wouldn't want to be over there either, as I said before.
We all know how Saddam neglected his people, and treated them beyond any reasonable civilized notion, so I can't buy that no one feels that those people wished to live a better life. Oppression is oppression, you don't have to speak out to know that it's depressing.
but, we must recall, the need of the people was not actually the reason for the war until the WMDs pulled an MIA
That can go either way...
In the same way you are asking for a poll as a means of acceptance, one may say they have yet to see a poll that would illustrate quite plainly their discontent.
You have to look at the evidence. Upon any outcry of foreign aid, saddam would have his people killed for speaking out against him. And to be honest, if the Iraqi people didn't want us over there, then I wouldn't want to be over there either, as I said before.
We all know how Saddam neglected his people, and treated them beyond any reasonable civilized notion, so I can't buy that no one feels that those people wished to live a better life. Oppression is oppression, you don't have to speak out to know that it's depressing.
Death For Saddam
who said "no one" ?
I readily offered "While I'm sure that some of them are happy about the way things were handled..." that does not make for democracy though. Which is the import in question. I suggest that if they had had democracy already they might have avoided attack, just for different reasons than those presumed by most.
I readily offered "While I'm sure that some of them are happy about the way things were handled..." that does not make for democracy though. Which is the import in question. I suggest that if they had had democracy already they might have avoided attack, just for different reasons than those presumed by most.
Death For Saddam
K.Snyder;453563 wrote: No my idea of protecting "sheep" is to allow an unbiased social structure based on equal opportunity rights that go hand in hand with a stable economy...Unbiased social structure? Have you considered Article 89 of the new Iraq Constitution - "The Federal Supreme Court shall be made up of number of judges, and
experts in Islamic jurisprudence..." - the previous genuinely secular republic has had religion embedded into its legal process during US oversight, can you dream up a more retrograde step? Women in pre-"liberation" Iraq drove their own cars to their own jobs in whatever form of dress they felt comfortable with. Now to work is itself to add to the daily risks of living, driving a car is out of the question and dress outside of the home is back to the cultural norm for a non-secular Middle Eastern country. This is your notion of "an unbiased social structure based on equal opportunity rights"? Can you see matters improving to even pre-"liberation" conditions for women's rights, however long the occupying forces stay? It's a pipe-dream.
Edit add: just for completeness - I assumed everyone already knew Article 2 but apparently not. It's in the same vein. "Article 2: First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation: A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.
experts in Islamic jurisprudence..." - the previous genuinely secular republic has had religion embedded into its legal process during US oversight, can you dream up a more retrograde step? Women in pre-"liberation" Iraq drove their own cars to their own jobs in whatever form of dress they felt comfortable with. Now to work is itself to add to the daily risks of living, driving a car is out of the question and dress outside of the home is back to the cultural norm for a non-secular Middle Eastern country. This is your notion of "an unbiased social structure based on equal opportunity rights"? Can you see matters improving to even pre-"liberation" conditions for women's rights, however long the occupying forces stay? It's a pipe-dream.
Edit add: just for completeness - I assumed everyone already knew Article 2 but apparently not. It's in the same vein. "Article 2: First: Islam is the official religion of the State and it is a fundamental source of legislation: A. No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Death For Saddam
spot;453618 wrote: Unbiased social structure? Have you considered Article 89 of the new Iraq Constitution - "The Federal Supreme Court shall be made up of number of judges, and
experts in Islamic jurisprudence..." - the previous genuinely secular republic has had religion embedded into its legal process during US oversight, can you dream up a more retrograde step? Women in pre-"liberation" Iraq drove their own cars to their own jobs in whatever form of dress they felt comfortable with. Now to work is itself to add to the daily risks of living, driving a car is out of the question and dress outside of the home is back to the cultural norm for a non-secular Middle Eastern country. This is your notion of "an unbiased social structure based on equal opportunity rights"? Can you see matters improving to even pre-"liberation" conditions for women's rights, however long the occupying forces stay? It's a pipe-dream.
Religious entity that's seems to be imposed on everyone born of Islam, in which is held by the so called "righteous" leaders to be essential when it comes to governmental law. Religion shouldn't have anything to do with politics and whats morally right for its citizens. These people have been forced into such habits at an early age, at the same time faced brutal consequences if that very same law had been broken, and to expect that they drop their customs at the drop of a hat doesn't reflect upon their intelligence with justice.
Besides,..You can't predict the outcome of anything while observing step 5 of 10.
experts in Islamic jurisprudence..." - the previous genuinely secular republic has had religion embedded into its legal process during US oversight, can you dream up a more retrograde step? Women in pre-"liberation" Iraq drove their own cars to their own jobs in whatever form of dress they felt comfortable with. Now to work is itself to add to the daily risks of living, driving a car is out of the question and dress outside of the home is back to the cultural norm for a non-secular Middle Eastern country. This is your notion of "an unbiased social structure based on equal opportunity rights"? Can you see matters improving to even pre-"liberation" conditions for women's rights, however long the occupying forces stay? It's a pipe-dream.
Religious entity that's seems to be imposed on everyone born of Islam, in which is held by the so called "righteous" leaders to be essential when it comes to governmental law. Religion shouldn't have anything to do with politics and whats morally right for its citizens. These people have been forced into such habits at an early age, at the same time faced brutal consequences if that very same law had been broken, and to expect that they drop their customs at the drop of a hat doesn't reflect upon their intelligence with justice.
Besides,..You can't predict the outcome of anything while observing step 5 of 10.
Death For Saddam
K.Snyder;453621 wrote: to expect that they drop their customs at the drop of a hat doesn't reflect upon their intelligence with justice.
Besides,..You can't predict the outcome of anything while observing step 5 of 10.You're not open to information - under the previous government these "customs" you speak of were a thing of the past. Now they're back, with the rise of influence of the Shia religious leaders.
I thought we were on step 15 of 10 already, and counting.
Besides,..You can't predict the outcome of anything while observing step 5 of 10.You're not open to information - under the previous government these "customs" you speak of were a thing of the past. Now they're back, with the rise of influence of the Shia religious leaders.
I thought we were on step 15 of 10 already, and counting.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Death For Saddam
This thread has I see descended into yet again people arguing about their own domestic politics and worldview. The way I see it is this.
Is the Iraq War a stupid and wasteful war: Yes.
Was Saddams trial a farce: Yes
Was there any other way in which such a man would every be punished realisitcally? No
Is Saddam Hussein a murderer and a despot: Yes
Did the U.S. support him when is was useful to do so? Yes
Did anyone else complain at the time?: Not much I think.
Based on what he has done is it justifyable to execute him? Yes.
Does being a head of state mean you should never be called to account for your actions if it is possible? NO.
Was getting Saddam worth all the trouble? NO
Is it more important that a way out of this mess is found instead of people scoring cheap points off each other? Yes.
Is the Iraq War a stupid and wasteful war: Yes.
Was Saddams trial a farce: Yes
Was there any other way in which such a man would every be punished realisitcally? No
Is Saddam Hussein a murderer and a despot: Yes
Did the U.S. support him when is was useful to do so? Yes
Did anyone else complain at the time?: Not much I think.
Based on what he has done is it justifyable to execute him? Yes.
Does being a head of state mean you should never be called to account for your actions if it is possible? NO.
Was getting Saddam worth all the trouble? NO
Is it more important that a way out of this mess is found instead of people scoring cheap points off each other? Yes.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Death For Saddam
spot;453626 wrote: You're not open to information - under the previous government these "customs" you speak of were a thing of the past. Now they're back, with the rise of influence of the Shia religious leaders.
I thought we were on step 15 of 10 already, and counting.
This is like blaming Santa for the Grinch stealing the presents just because he exists.
I thought we were on step 15 of 10 already, and counting.
This is like blaming Santa for the Grinch stealing the presents just because he exists.
Death For Saddam
Galbally;453655 wrote: This thread has I see descended into yet again people arguing about their own domestic politics and worldview. The way I see it is this.
Is the Iraq War a stupid and wasteful war: Yes.
Was Saddams trial a farce: Yes
Was there any other way in which such a man would every be punished realisitcally? No
Is Saddam Hussein a murderer and a despot: Yes
Did the U.S. support him when is was useful to do so? Yes
Did anyone else complain at the time?: Not much I think.
Based on what he has done is it justifyable to execute him? Yes.
Does being a head of state mean you should never be called to account for your actions if it is possible? NO.
Was getting Saddam worth all the trouble? NO
Is it more important that a way out of this mess is found instead of people scoring cheap points off each other? Yes.
While I appreciate your attempt to summarize, some of your assertions are also merely opinions. As such, you also are merely arguing about your own domestic politics and world view. (aside) Sometimes cheap shots are the best one can make of a conversation.
The problem, I find, is that "facts" can not simply be agreed upon. The internet was supposed to make information instantly accessible. Instead it's turned into a world where no source is sacred. So where do you get your facts from? Even Amnesty International is a propaganda factory to those who disagree. How can a reasonable discussion be held without facts?
Is the Iraq War a stupid and wasteful war: Yes.
Was Saddams trial a farce: Yes
Was there any other way in which such a man would every be punished realisitcally? No
Is Saddam Hussein a murderer and a despot: Yes
Did the U.S. support him when is was useful to do so? Yes
Did anyone else complain at the time?: Not much I think.
Based on what he has done is it justifyable to execute him? Yes.
Does being a head of state mean you should never be called to account for your actions if it is possible? NO.
Was getting Saddam worth all the trouble? NO
Is it more important that a way out of this mess is found instead of people scoring cheap points off each other? Yes.
While I appreciate your attempt to summarize, some of your assertions are also merely opinions. As such, you also are merely arguing about your own domestic politics and world view. (aside) Sometimes cheap shots are the best one can make of a conversation.
The problem, I find, is that "facts" can not simply be agreed upon. The internet was supposed to make information instantly accessible. Instead it's turned into a world where no source is sacred. So where do you get your facts from? Even Amnesty International is a propaganda factory to those who disagree. How can a reasonable discussion be held without facts?
-
nvalleyvee
- Posts: 5191
- Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 8:57 am
Death For Saddam
koan;450014 wrote: If we begin to see other humans as less than human who will draw the line? He is, in fact, a human being. To say otherwise opens the doors to a world of trouble.
How many Human beings did he kill.
He gassed thousands of Kurdish.
He drained the marshland of southern Iraq to force them out.
koan;453579 wrote: I've yet to see convincing evidence that they asked anyone to come remove Saddam for them. A poll perhaps? An open letter written by some distraught citizen? While I'm sure that some of them are happy about the way things were handled, if it's democracy the US is promoting then there ought to be some sort of a percentage poll performed before action was taken.
but, we must recall, the need of the people was not actually the reason for the war until the WMDs pulled an MIA
OK KOAN........you and I alway agree to disagree..........this is one of those times.
The Kurds in the northern part of Iraq were gassed.................
The native peoples in the southern part of Iraq had their marsh lands systematically drained to force them out. Saddam made a desert out of this marsh land that was home to thousands of people for hundreds of years.
Since 2003, USAID has helped restore Iraq’s marshlands and develop the local economy. Reflooding as much as 25 to 30 percent of the original marshlands has been directed by local tribes and MWR. USAID-funded activities include national level as well as local marshland level activities.
From 1991 to 2003, the Ba’athist regime nearly destroyed the Mesopotamian Marshlands, one of the largest wetland systems in the world. Massive drainage structures diverted water from 8,000 square miles of marshes. The drainage targeted the unique, 5,000-year-old Marsh Arab society, seen as disloyal and unmanageable after the Shi’a insurrection of 1991. The Ba’athists raided settlements, killed tens of thousands, burned houses, and killed livestock. Already some of the poorest people in Iraq, the Marsh Arabs were exiled or internally displaced. Many escaped to cities, but the fewer than 100,000 that remained were forced to relocate, some as many as 18 times. Currently, water supply is diminishing due to dam construction and expanding irrigation schemes in the Tigris and Euphrates headwaters in Turkey and Syria.
Restoration of the Mesopotamian Marshlands at the confluence of the Tigris and Euphrates in southeastern Iraq carries political, cultural, and economic significance beyond the ecology of the wetland areas. Evidence of the atrocities committed against the marsh dwellers is still apparent. As a consequence of the drainage and destruction, the largely displaced and widely persecuted marsh dwellers still suffer from economic loss, inadequate nutritional intake, and absence of primary health care and acceptable drinking water.
In February 2004, an Iraqi and international team, mobilized by USAID’s prime contractor, convened in Basra to design an action plan for the Marshlands Restoration Program. The program, led by the Ministry of Water Resources (MOWR) in cooperation with USAID and other donors, will restore the marshland ecosystem through improved management and strategic re-flooding in addition to providing social and economic assistance to Marsh Arabs including health, education, and rural development.
There was so much destroyed in an effort to force these indigenous peoples out of thei homeland.............
Dang..............maybe we should not interfere in a population that has no way of defending themselves. As a strong country.............I'd like to see this with countries that are not at war and we can help them restore their natural resources.....
I'm still an environmental restoration person to my core.
How many Human beings did he kill.
He gassed thousands of Kurdish.
He drained the marshland of southern Iraq to force them out.
koan;453579 wrote: I've yet to see convincing evidence that they asked anyone to come remove Saddam for them. A poll perhaps? An open letter written by some distraught citizen? While I'm sure that some of them are happy about the way things were handled, if it's democracy the US is promoting then there ought to be some sort of a percentage poll performed before action was taken.
but, we must recall, the need of the people was not actually the reason for the war until the WMDs pulled an MIA
OK KOAN........you and I alway agree to disagree..........this is one of those times.
The Kurds in the northern part of Iraq were gassed.................
The native peoples in the southern part of Iraq had their marsh lands systematically drained to force them out. Saddam made a desert out of this marsh land that was home to thousands of people for hundreds of years.
Since 2003, USAID has helped restore Iraq’s marshlands and develop the local economy. Reflooding as much as 25 to 30 percent of the original marshlands has been directed by local tribes and MWR. USAID-funded activities include national level as well as local marshland level activities.
From 1991 to 2003, the Ba’athist regime nearly destroyed the Mesopotamian Marshlands, one of the largest wetland systems in the world. Massive drainage structures diverted water from 8,000 square miles of marshes. The drainage targeted the unique, 5,000-year-old Marsh Arab society, seen as disloyal and unmanageable after the Shi’a insurrection of 1991. The Ba’athists raided settlements, killed tens of thousands, burned houses, and killed livestock. Already some of the poorest people in Iraq, the Marsh Arabs were exiled or internally displaced. Many escaped to cities, but the fewer than 100,000 that remained were forced to relocate, some as many as 18 times. Currently, water supply is diminishing due to dam construction and expanding irrigation schemes in the Tigris and Euphrates headwaters in Turkey and Syria.
Restoration of the Mesopotamian Marshlands at the confluence of the Tigris and Euphrates in southeastern Iraq carries political, cultural, and economic significance beyond the ecology of the wetland areas. Evidence of the atrocities committed against the marsh dwellers is still apparent. As a consequence of the drainage and destruction, the largely displaced and widely persecuted marsh dwellers still suffer from economic loss, inadequate nutritional intake, and absence of primary health care and acceptable drinking water.
In February 2004, an Iraqi and international team, mobilized by USAID’s prime contractor, convened in Basra to design an action plan for the Marshlands Restoration Program. The program, led by the Ministry of Water Resources (MOWR) in cooperation with USAID and other donors, will restore the marshland ecosystem through improved management and strategic re-flooding in addition to providing social and economic assistance to Marsh Arabs including health, education, and rural development.
There was so much destroyed in an effort to force these indigenous peoples out of thei homeland.............
Dang..............maybe we should not interfere in a population that has no way of defending themselves. As a strong country.............I'd like to see this with countries that are not at war and we can help them restore their natural resources.....
I'm still an environmental restoration person to my core.
The growth of knowledge depends entirely on disagreement..........Karl R. Popper
Death For Saddam
koan;453752 wrote: While I appreciate your attempt to summarize, some of your assertions are also merely opinions.
He stated that all in which he said was the way he seen it,..which implicates that all of it was his opinion.
"This is the way I see it" is what he said.
...
On a side note...I agree with all of it,..unless of course Iraq proves to actually be stable enough to repell terrorist activity, and the Iraqi people live their lives as they wish,..then I would have to agree that the imprisonment of Suddam(hypothetically speaking) was worth it.
He stated that all in which he said was the way he seen it,..which implicates that all of it was his opinion.
"This is the way I see it" is what he said.
...
On a side note...I agree with all of it,..unless of course Iraq proves to actually be stable enough to repell terrorist activity, and the Iraqi people live their lives as they wish,..then I would have to agree that the imprisonment of Suddam(hypothetically speaking) was worth it.
Death For Saddam
NVV
koan wrote: the need of the people was not actually the reason for the war until the WMDs pulled an MIA
If we agree to disagree, which is fine by me, then this is the part you have to disagree with. Are you saying that the reason for invasion was originally to save those poor Iraqis from their dictator? Surely the FACTS would prove otherwise.
koan wrote: the need of the people was not actually the reason for the war until the WMDs pulled an MIA
If we agree to disagree, which is fine by me, then this is the part you have to disagree with. Are you saying that the reason for invasion was originally to save those poor Iraqis from their dictator? Surely the FACTS would prove otherwise.
Death For Saddam
K.Snyder;453760 wrote: He stated that all in which he said was the way he seen it,..which implicates that all of it was his opinion.
"This is the way I see it" is what he said.
...
On a side note...I agree with all of it,..unless of course Iraq proves to actually be stable enough to repell terrorist activity, and the Iraqi people live their lives as they wish,..then I would have to agree that the imprisonment of Suddam(hypothetically speaking) was worth it.
Merely pointing out that his use of "descending" would also apply to his post, as described by himself.
"This is the way I see it" is what he said.
...
On a side note...I agree with all of it,..unless of course Iraq proves to actually be stable enough to repell terrorist activity, and the Iraqi people live their lives as they wish,..then I would have to agree that the imprisonment of Suddam(hypothetically speaking) was worth it.
Merely pointing out that his use of "descending" would also apply to his post, as described by himself.
Death For Saddam
Galbally;453655 wrote: This thread has I see descended into yet again people arguing about their own domestic politics and worldview. The way I see it is this.
Is the Iraq War a stupid and wasteful war: Yes.
Was Saddams trial a farce: Yes
Was there any other way in which such a man would every be punished realisitcally? No
Is Saddam Hussein a murderer and a despot: Yes
Did the U.S. support him when is was useful to do so? Yes
Did anyone else complain at the time?: Not much I think.
Based on what he has done is it justifyable to execute him? Yes.
Does being a head of state mean you should never be called to account for your actions if it is possible? NO.
Was getting Saddam worth all the trouble? NO
Is it more important that a way out of this mess is found instead of people scoring cheap points off each other? Yes.
well said galbally. i agree with everything you say here.
Is the Iraq War a stupid and wasteful war: Yes.
Was Saddams trial a farce: Yes
Was there any other way in which such a man would every be punished realisitcally? No
Is Saddam Hussein a murderer and a despot: Yes
Did the U.S. support him when is was useful to do so? Yes
Did anyone else complain at the time?: Not much I think.
Based on what he has done is it justifyable to execute him? Yes.
Does being a head of state mean you should never be called to account for your actions if it is possible? NO.
Was getting Saddam worth all the trouble? NO
Is it more important that a way out of this mess is found instead of people scoring cheap points off each other? Yes.
well said galbally. i agree with everything you say here.
-
nvalleyvee
- Posts: 5191
- Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 8:57 am
Death For Saddam
koan;453761 wrote: NVV
If we agree to disagree, which is fine by me, then this is the part you have to disagree with. Are you saying that the reason for invasion was originally to save those poor Iraqis from their dictator? Surely the FACTS would prove otherwise.
I think actually it is one of the reasons we did attack. A dictator can be benevolent and a good leader of the country.....Sadam was not..........he killed his kin.
If we agree to disagree, which is fine by me, then this is the part you have to disagree with. Are you saying that the reason for invasion was originally to save those poor Iraqis from their dictator? Surely the FACTS would prove otherwise.
I think actually it is one of the reasons we did attack. A dictator can be benevolent and a good leader of the country.....Sadam was not..........he killed his kin.
The growth of knowledge depends entirely on disagreement..........Karl R. Popper
Death For Saddam
koan;453752 wrote: While I appreciate your attempt to summarize, some of your assertions are also merely opinions. As such, you also are merely arguing about your own domestic politics and world view. (aside) Sometimes cheap shots are the best one can make of a conversation.
The problem, I find, is that "facts" can not simply be agreed upon. The internet was supposed to make information instantly accessible. Instead it's turned into a world where no source is sacred. So where do you get your facts from? Even Amnesty International is a propaganda factory to those who disagree. How can a reasonable discussion be held without facts?
Yes of course, I am a Western person with a western outlook, and I don't argue from any other perspective because I don't have one. As to the merits of differeing perspectives in world poltics I of course agree that you have to make some effort to understand and come to accomodation with differeing cultures etc, and also question your own cultures beliefs (which is a good old western tradition) but I also make no apology for arguing from my own point of view, to do otherwise would be disengenous.
The problem, I find, is that "facts" can not simply be agreed upon. The internet was supposed to make information instantly accessible. Instead it's turned into a world where no source is sacred. So where do you get your facts from? Even Amnesty International is a propaganda factory to those who disagree. How can a reasonable discussion be held without facts?
Yes of course, I am a Western person with a western outlook, and I don't argue from any other perspective because I don't have one. As to the merits of differeing perspectives in world poltics I of course agree that you have to make some effort to understand and come to accomodation with differeing cultures etc, and also question your own cultures beliefs (which is a good old western tradition) but I also make no apology for arguing from my own point of view, to do otherwise would be disengenous.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Death For Saddam
Galbally;455516 wrote: Yes of course, I am a Western person with a western outlook, and I don't argue from any other perspective because I don't have one. As to the merits of differeing perspectives in world poltics I of course agree that you have to make some effort to understand and come to accomodation with differeing cultures etc, and also question your own cultures beliefs (which is a good old western tradition) but I also make no apology for arguing from my own point of view, to do otherwise would be disengenous.
The first part of what I said was less important that the last part. We need to be able to agree on what the basic facts are to even consider reasonable debate. As shown by the post that immediately followed, it isn't even agreed upon as to what the reasons for this war were at the start. To have gone over there to save the Iraqi people from a despot would have been a blatant war crime, hence the WMD fiasco...yet people still disagree on such a basic fact.
You do have fairly good negotiation skills perhaps you can negotiate a way to set the facts straight. That would be a blessing in a leprechaun suit.
The first part of what I said was less important that the last part. We need to be able to agree on what the basic facts are to even consider reasonable debate. As shown by the post that immediately followed, it isn't even agreed upon as to what the reasons for this war were at the start. To have gone over there to save the Iraqi people from a despot would have been a blatant war crime, hence the WMD fiasco...yet people still disagree on such a basic fact.
You do have fairly good negotiation skills perhaps you can negotiate a way to set the facts straight. That would be a blessing in a leprechaun suit.
Death For Saddam
koan;455524 wrote: The first part of what I said was less important that the last part. We need to be able to agree on what the basic facts are to even consider reasonable debate. As shown by the post that immediately followed, it isn't even agreed upon as to what the reasons for this war were at the start. To have gone over there to save the Iraqi people from a despot would have been a blatant war crime, hence the WMD fiasco...yet people still disagree on such a basic fact.
You do have fairly good negotiation skills perhaps you can negotiate a way to set the facts straight. That would be a blessing in a leprechaun suit.
In terms of the "facts" it is of course not possible to truly discerne the 100 percent certainty of facts from our vantage point. But in general terms, from reporting, books, history, eyewitnesses, court cases, that some general assertations can be made.
Saddam Hussien was indeed a cruel despot, a Baathist, he was undoubtly responsible for the deaths of over a million people at home and in the Iran-Iraq war. His regime committed innumerous and barbaric acts of mass murder, torture, genocide, war-mongering, state terrorism against the Iraqi people.
The U.S. and the West supported Saddam in the past and were indirectly complicit in some of the things he is responisble for, as were others. There is no excuse for it, except to say they were more concerned about bigger fish than Saddam in the 1980's, and he was a useful "bast8rd" in the region at a time when the West was attemting to defeat the Soviet Union using Afganstian as a proxy theatre of war and also topple the Islamic fundamentalist revolution within Iran. These 2 policy objectives were mutally exclusive in the long run as the West both fought and supported fundamentalists in different states at different times, the outcome was bound to be not the one the West wanted. I suppose at that time the Soviet Union was the big enemy and that was why such things were done. In a word, realpolitik.
When Saddams postion after the Iran-Iraq war finished became unstable at home, he went for broke, tried to gain access to the oil reserves of the gulf and this brought him into conflict with the west, whom he infuriated by turning on them and threatening the world economy and other arab countries, [who also despised him with the exception of Syria (also a Baathist regieme)]. His regieme was deated in a war 1990 and removed from Kuwait, it was decided at the time that an invasion of Iraq would be counterproductive and open a bigger can of worms than Saddam himself (this has proven to be an accurate assessment).
Since that time he has been an enemy of the West, while also being an enemy of most of his neighbours.
After Sept 11th, some people in the U.S. administration saw a window of opportunity to get Saddam, as I think they regretted not doing it in 1990, they also knew he was weak, and that an easy victory could be secured in what is a very difficult and not very well understood conflict between the West and miitant Islamic jihaddists. That was a naive judgement, based on very optimistic assesments of what any end-game in Iraq would be like. Many senior Administration officals did not want this war, but went along with it as they were out manouvered, by their rivals in the administration. Saddam had nothing to do with Septmber 11th, he was a Baathist and a secular totalotarian socialist, he was the avowed enemy of relgious extremists within Islam, he hated the U.S., but that was coincidental. Its very improbable that he had any WMDs (to date none have been found), and it most likely that this was the pretext used to railroad the UN and anti-war sentiments in the UN (as well as misgivings in America about the wisdom of the war).
The Regieme was easily toppled in 2003, it was hated in Iraq by most people, especially non-Sunni muslims, and his military were incompetent, poorly led, and ill-equiped to fight anyone, let alone the U.S. The invasion was easy, holding and rebuilding the country is a nightmare, and probably impossible for the U.S. to do now at this stage. The UN does not have the poltical will or unity to do the job, the British don't have the power, the EU doesn't want to know, the Iranians and the Syrians are waiting in the wings to get their claws into whats left after the U.S. and Britain are gone, the coallition realize this, and can't leave, while also being unable to keep pouring lives and billions of dollars down a black hole so local council elections can be held in Bagdad, and a petty middle eastern tyrant of no particular distinction gets his comeuppins. The public in the U.S. now are obviously not very happy with all of this and want a change, what exactly that is going to be, or how its going to work, I have no idea.
The Iraq war has now of course become the cause celebre for Arabs, and has become nearly as important as the intermiable Israel-Palestine conflict as a reason why everyone should hate the West, unfortunatly U.S. policy has played directly into this contituency and the Bush governement only have themselves to blame, at a time of real national danger, the Administration decided to indulge itself in a militaty adventure that it thought would be easy, that was wrong and the consequnces for the actual struggle againt Islamic extremism are very damaging.
In short, its a disaster, and George Junior should have paid more attention as to why his dad avoided invading Iraq like the plague, his decision in 1990 was often criticized, its obvious now, he knew what he was doing.
Yours
Leprechaun Diplomat, Galbally.
You do have fairly good negotiation skills perhaps you can negotiate a way to set the facts straight. That would be a blessing in a leprechaun suit.
In terms of the "facts" it is of course not possible to truly discerne the 100 percent certainty of facts from our vantage point. But in general terms, from reporting, books, history, eyewitnesses, court cases, that some general assertations can be made.
Saddam Hussien was indeed a cruel despot, a Baathist, he was undoubtly responsible for the deaths of over a million people at home and in the Iran-Iraq war. His regime committed innumerous and barbaric acts of mass murder, torture, genocide, war-mongering, state terrorism against the Iraqi people.
The U.S. and the West supported Saddam in the past and were indirectly complicit in some of the things he is responisble for, as were others. There is no excuse for it, except to say they were more concerned about bigger fish than Saddam in the 1980's, and he was a useful "bast8rd" in the region at a time when the West was attemting to defeat the Soviet Union using Afganstian as a proxy theatre of war and also topple the Islamic fundamentalist revolution within Iran. These 2 policy objectives were mutally exclusive in the long run as the West both fought and supported fundamentalists in different states at different times, the outcome was bound to be not the one the West wanted. I suppose at that time the Soviet Union was the big enemy and that was why such things were done. In a word, realpolitik.
When Saddams postion after the Iran-Iraq war finished became unstable at home, he went for broke, tried to gain access to the oil reserves of the gulf and this brought him into conflict with the west, whom he infuriated by turning on them and threatening the world economy and other arab countries, [who also despised him with the exception of Syria (also a Baathist regieme)]. His regieme was deated in a war 1990 and removed from Kuwait, it was decided at the time that an invasion of Iraq would be counterproductive and open a bigger can of worms than Saddam himself (this has proven to be an accurate assessment).
Since that time he has been an enemy of the West, while also being an enemy of most of his neighbours.
After Sept 11th, some people in the U.S. administration saw a window of opportunity to get Saddam, as I think they regretted not doing it in 1990, they also knew he was weak, and that an easy victory could be secured in what is a very difficult and not very well understood conflict between the West and miitant Islamic jihaddists. That was a naive judgement, based on very optimistic assesments of what any end-game in Iraq would be like. Many senior Administration officals did not want this war, but went along with it as they were out manouvered, by their rivals in the administration. Saddam had nothing to do with Septmber 11th, he was a Baathist and a secular totalotarian socialist, he was the avowed enemy of relgious extremists within Islam, he hated the U.S., but that was coincidental. Its very improbable that he had any WMDs (to date none have been found), and it most likely that this was the pretext used to railroad the UN and anti-war sentiments in the UN (as well as misgivings in America about the wisdom of the war).
The Regieme was easily toppled in 2003, it was hated in Iraq by most people, especially non-Sunni muslims, and his military were incompetent, poorly led, and ill-equiped to fight anyone, let alone the U.S. The invasion was easy, holding and rebuilding the country is a nightmare, and probably impossible for the U.S. to do now at this stage. The UN does not have the poltical will or unity to do the job, the British don't have the power, the EU doesn't want to know, the Iranians and the Syrians are waiting in the wings to get their claws into whats left after the U.S. and Britain are gone, the coallition realize this, and can't leave, while also being unable to keep pouring lives and billions of dollars down a black hole so local council elections can be held in Bagdad, and a petty middle eastern tyrant of no particular distinction gets his comeuppins. The public in the U.S. now are obviously not very happy with all of this and want a change, what exactly that is going to be, or how its going to work, I have no idea.
The Iraq war has now of course become the cause celebre for Arabs, and has become nearly as important as the intermiable Israel-Palestine conflict as a reason why everyone should hate the West, unfortunatly U.S. policy has played directly into this contituency and the Bush governement only have themselves to blame, at a time of real national danger, the Administration decided to indulge itself in a militaty adventure that it thought would be easy, that was wrong and the consequnces for the actual struggle againt Islamic extremism are very damaging.
In short, its a disaster, and George Junior should have paid more attention as to why his dad avoided invading Iraq like the plague, his decision in 1990 was often criticized, its obvious now, he knew what he was doing.
Yours
Leprechaun Diplomat, Galbally.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
-
nvalleyvee
- Posts: 5191
- Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2005 8:57 am
Death For Saddam
koan;449949 wrote: Death penalty for Saddam Hussein
Former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has been convicted of crimes against humanity by a Baghdad court and sentenced to death by hanging.
He was found guilty over his role in the killing of 148 people in the mainly Shia town of Dujail in 1982.
His co-defendant former judge Awad Hamed al-Bander was also sentenced to death. Former vice-president Taha Yassin Ramadan got life in jail.
Three others received 15 year prison terms, another official was acquitted.
BBC
Exsquesse me...................Sadam killed thousands of people.............AND Sadam desimated an entire wetland that supported an entire population.........DAMN HIM
Former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein has been convicted of crimes against humanity by a Baghdad court and sentenced to death by hanging.
He was found guilty over his role in the killing of 148 people in the mainly Shia town of Dujail in 1982.
His co-defendant former judge Awad Hamed al-Bander was also sentenced to death. Former vice-president Taha Yassin Ramadan got life in jail.
Three others received 15 year prison terms, another official was acquitted.
BBC
Exsquesse me...................Sadam killed thousands of people.............AND Sadam desimated an entire wetland that supported an entire population.........DAMN HIM
The growth of knowledge depends entirely on disagreement..........Karl R. Popper
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
Death For Saddam
Galbally;455529 wrote: When Saddams postion after the Iran-Iraq war finished became unstable at home, he went for broke, tried to gain access to the oil reserves of the gulf
Please will you explain this a little, LDG?
Please will you explain this a little, LDG?
Death For Saddam
nvalleyvee;455543 wrote: Exsquesse me...................Sadam killed thousands of people.............AND Sadam desimated an entire wetland that supported an entire population.........DAMN HIMWhat Head of State can claim not to have done such things? Go on, that's a serious question - it's what Heads of State do, worldwide. You can think of exceptions? The Blessed Margaret, for example, or her soulmate Ronny?
That's why, from the end of their term, they're immune to all charges relating to their period of office short of prosecution at the International Criminal Court for genocide, crimes against humanity, crime of aggression, and war crimes. Except, of course, where they've just lost a war and the winners care nothing for public opinion.
That's why, from the end of their term, they're immune to all charges relating to their period of office short of prosecution at the International Criminal Court for genocide, crimes against humanity, crime of aggression, and war crimes. Except, of course, where they've just lost a war and the winners care nothing for public opinion.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious.
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Death For Saddam
Bill Sikes;455663 wrote: Please will you explain this a little, LDG?
Certainly, the Iran-Iraq war lasted for 8 years and cost more than a million lives, it was ruinously expensive for Iraq, resulting in a pointless stalemate, and severely demoralized the Iraqi military, athough of course being the man he was no critizicism was leveled directly at Saddam or the regieme at the time, he realized that his country was in a very difficut finacial position, and that his leadership was probably being questioned by senior military staff, he decided that a fairly painless invasion of an very richneighbour to the south would be the answer to all his probelms, of course he miscalculted and the rest is history.
Certainly, the Iran-Iraq war lasted for 8 years and cost more than a million lives, it was ruinously expensive for Iraq, resulting in a pointless stalemate, and severely demoralized the Iraqi military, athough of course being the man he was no critizicism was leveled directly at Saddam or the regieme at the time, he realized that his country was in a very difficut finacial position, and that his leadership was probably being questioned by senior military staff, he decided that a fairly painless invasion of an very richneighbour to the south would be the answer to all his probelms, of course he miscalculted and the rest is history.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
-
Bill Sikes
- Posts: 5515
- Joined: Fri Aug 20, 2004 2:21 am
Death For Saddam
Galbally;455695 wrote: Certainly, the Iran-Iraq war lasted for 8 years and cost more than a million lives, it was ruinously expensive for Iraq, resulting in a pointless stalemate, and severely demoralized the Iraqi military, athough of course being the man he was no critizicism was leveled directly at Saddam or the regieme at the time
Yes, yes....
Galbally;455695 wrote: [Saddam Hussein]realized that his country was in a very difficut finacial position, and that his leadership was probably being questioned by senior military staff, he decided that a fairly painless invasion of an very richneighbour to the south would be the answer to all his probelms, of course he miscalculted and the rest is history.
Hm. The reasons for that war are several, but the main one is supposed to be
the access to and control of the Shatt-al-Arab.
Interesting notes:
During that war, Israel actually supplied arms to Iran!
Iraq has the second-largest oil reserves in the world, after the Saudi Arabia (this
figure does not include tar sands, oil shales, etc.).
Yes, yes....
Galbally;455695 wrote: [Saddam Hussein]realized that his country was in a very difficut finacial position, and that his leadership was probably being questioned by senior military staff, he decided that a fairly painless invasion of an very richneighbour to the south would be the answer to all his probelms, of course he miscalculted and the rest is history.
Hm. The reasons for that war are several, but the main one is supposed to be
the access to and control of the Shatt-al-Arab.
Interesting notes:
During that war, Israel actually supplied arms to Iran!
Iraq has the second-largest oil reserves in the world, after the Saudi Arabia (this
figure does not include tar sands, oil shales, etc.).
Death For Saddam
The establishments of facts requires a list of events with attachment of meaning or any therefores. The moment you extend from the actual event and try to analyse it you have entered the realm of possible mistake. So let's try again with just a list of facts and then we can inject other facts that were missed in the sequence of occurrence.
The reasons, meanings and motives are all debatable. What we need is an agreed upon set of facts.
The reasons, meanings and motives are all debatable. What we need is an agreed upon set of facts.
Death For Saddam
[QUOTE=Bill Sikes;455733]Yes, yes....
Hm. The reasons for that war are several, but the main one is supposed to be
the access to and control of the Shatt-al-Arab.
Yes I agree, there were several complex reasons for the war, shatt-al-arab was one and provided the immeadiate trigger, the Iranian revolution was another, old fashioned nationist rehtoric was another, Saddam himself was a great believer in the use of foreign war to cement his own regieme (as many governemnts do), the West also encouraged him in the beginning as they also wanted the Mullahs in Tehran to be overthrown, as usual its a complex picture.
Hm. The reasons for that war are several, but the main one is supposed to be
the access to and control of the Shatt-al-Arab.
Yes I agree, there were several complex reasons for the war, shatt-al-arab was one and provided the immeadiate trigger, the Iranian revolution was another, old fashioned nationist rehtoric was another, Saddam himself was a great believer in the use of foreign war to cement his own regieme (as many governemnts do), the West also encouraged him in the beginning as they also wanted the Mullahs in Tehran to be overthrown, as usual its a complex picture.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Death For Saddam
koan;455763 wrote: The establishments of facts requires a list of events with attachment of meaning or any therefores. The moment you extend from the actual event and try to analyse it you have entered the realm of possible mistake. So let's try again with just a list of facts and then we can inject other facts that were missed in the sequence of occurrence.
The reasons, meanings and motives are all debatable. What we need is an agreed upon set of facts.
Tell you what, you post a list of what you believe are the facts and then we shall debate them, it would be quicker.
The reasons, meanings and motives are all debatable. What we need is an agreed upon set of facts.
Tell you what, you post a list of what you believe are the facts and then we shall debate them, it would be quicker.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Death For Saddam
1. Saddam was the head of state in Iraq.
2. Saddam was a despot with a bad human rights record.
3. Head of state immunity has long protected leaders and organs of States from prosecution for acts procured under the mantle of state leadership. It had its basis in customary international law,**2 and has evolved into a standard universally accepted by most countries. Head of state immunity has, however, been precluded in civil cases where the head of state''s actions were completely private in nature. It has also been dissolved when actions of the head of state are found to be in gross violation of international law, violations over which there is universal jurisdiction and violations which are contrary to principles of jus cogens.
4. Before Saddam can be judged personally for any acts committed by his regime, point number 3 must be addressed. The facts of his trial can accumulate but until this is decided none of it is relevent.
2. Saddam was a despot with a bad human rights record.
3. Head of state immunity has long protected leaders and organs of States from prosecution for acts procured under the mantle of state leadership. It had its basis in customary international law,**2 and has evolved into a standard universally accepted by most countries. Head of state immunity has, however, been precluded in civil cases where the head of state''s actions were completely private in nature. It has also been dissolved when actions of the head of state are found to be in gross violation of international law, violations over which there is universal jurisdiction and violations which are contrary to principles of jus cogens.
4. Before Saddam can be judged personally for any acts committed by his regime, point number 3 must be addressed. The facts of his trial can accumulate but until this is decided none of it is relevent.
Death For Saddam
koan;455782 wrote: 1. Saddam was the head of state in Iraq.
2. Saddam was a despot with a bad human rights record.
3. Head of state immunity has long protected leaders and organs of States from prosecution for acts procured under the mantle of state leadership. It had its basis in customary international law,**2 and has evolved into a standard universally accepted by most countries. Head of state immunity has, however, been precluded in civil cases where the head of state''s actions were completely private in nature. It has also been dissolved when actions of the head of state are found to be in gross violation of international law, violations over which there is universal jurisdiction and violations which are contrary to principles of jus cogens.
4. Before Saddam can be judged personally for any acts committed by his regime, point number 3 must be addressed. The facts of his trial can accumulate but until this is decided none of it is relevent.
In terms of point 3, the way that has been gotten around is by having him tried by an Iraqi provisional court that was subsequently ratified by the Iraqi parliament. Its a device of course, but there were a lot of interests both inside and outside Iraq that wanted hm dead and this was the means used to achieve it.
In terms of the legality, it is certainly quetionable about the courts soverignty in terms of its right to try saddam (as saddam himself said), it is a general convention that occupying forces leave a local system of law in place and Iraqi law did not in previous times have the jurisdiction to try such cases, but that is academic now. In my opinion its obvious that the head of a state that has been defeated by another state and who has demonstrably commited gross acts of barbarism that know no law, can only reasonably expect to be dealt with using the old Roman maxim "woe to the vanquished".
On a broader theme, I actually think that the head of state argument violates the broad thrust of the UN's and EU's human rights acts that do permit heads of state to commit acts that grossely breach human rights and as far as I can see does permit them to be tried, the Head of State convention is just that, a convention, and it goes against the basic principal of law, in that it is applicable to everyone in theory, regardless of rank, thats a very Western attitude of course, but of course thats my own particular point of view.
2. Saddam was a despot with a bad human rights record.
3. Head of state immunity has long protected leaders and organs of States from prosecution for acts procured under the mantle of state leadership. It had its basis in customary international law,**2 and has evolved into a standard universally accepted by most countries. Head of state immunity has, however, been precluded in civil cases where the head of state''s actions were completely private in nature. It has also been dissolved when actions of the head of state are found to be in gross violation of international law, violations over which there is universal jurisdiction and violations which are contrary to principles of jus cogens.
4. Before Saddam can be judged personally for any acts committed by his regime, point number 3 must be addressed. The facts of his trial can accumulate but until this is decided none of it is relevent.
In terms of point 3, the way that has been gotten around is by having him tried by an Iraqi provisional court that was subsequently ratified by the Iraqi parliament. Its a device of course, but there were a lot of interests both inside and outside Iraq that wanted hm dead and this was the means used to achieve it.
In terms of the legality, it is certainly quetionable about the courts soverignty in terms of its right to try saddam (as saddam himself said), it is a general convention that occupying forces leave a local system of law in place and Iraqi law did not in previous times have the jurisdiction to try such cases, but that is academic now. In my opinion its obvious that the head of a state that has been defeated by another state and who has demonstrably commited gross acts of barbarism that know no law, can only reasonably expect to be dealt with using the old Roman maxim "woe to the vanquished".
On a broader theme, I actually think that the head of state argument violates the broad thrust of the UN's and EU's human rights acts that do permit heads of state to commit acts that grossely breach human rights and as far as I can see does permit them to be tried, the Head of State convention is just that, a convention, and it goes against the basic principal of law, in that it is applicable to everyone in theory, regardless of rank, thats a very Western attitude of course, but of course thats my own particular point of view.
"We are never so happy, never so unhappy, as we imagine"
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Le Rochefoucauld.
"A smack in the face settles all arguments, then you can move on kid."
My dad 1986.
Death For Saddam
There is no strike through feature available on FG so consider the blue text to be stricken for accuracy.
Galbally;455529 wrote:
Saddam Hussien was indeed a cruel despot
despot implies cruel so to mention that is biasing the statement to mean more cruel than other despots
a Baathist
This is a fact on it's own. It means nothing other than that Saddam is a Baathist. It's inclusion in the list of facts is subject to questions of valid relevance but I will allow that it is a fact.
The U.S. and the West supported Saddam in the past and were indirectly complicit in some of the things he is responisble for, as were others.
Taking out the last, ambiguous part, this can be shown to be a fact. "the West" needs to be defined as there is no country by that name. Additional note: it is not Iraq on trial here so the names of the corresponding heads of state ought to be mentioned, not hiding behind the name of their state.
When Saddams postion after the Iran-Iraq war finished became unstable at home, he went for broke, tried to gain access to the oil reserves of the gulf and this brought him into conflict with the west, whom he infuriated by turning on them and threatening the world economy and other arab countries, [who also despised him with the exception of Syria (also a Baathist regieme)]. His regieme was deated in a war 1990 and removed from Kuwait, it was decided at the time that an invasion of Iraq would be counterproductive and open a bigger can of worms than Saddam himself (this has proven to be an accurate assessment).
That's a pretty good summary of the first Gulf War. It needs to be kept in mind that Kuwait is considered a province of Iraq by Saddam.
Since that time he has been an enemy of the West, while also being an enemy of most of his neighbours.
Again, "the West" is not a country. For example: Canada is part of "the West" yet would hardly say that Iraq was an "enemy". I'm fine with this as a fact, it just needs the names of countries inserted.
After Sept 11th, some people in the U.S. administration saw a window of opportunity to get Saddam, as I think they regretted not doing it in 1990, they also knew he was weak, and that an easy victory could be secured in what is a very difficult and not very well understood conflict between the West and miitant Islamic jihaddists.
Some might debate this but I will accept this as fact with the blue text removed of trying to mind read.
Saddam had nothing to do with Septmber 11th
Even GW Bush has said this. This is a great big fact that has been ignored in other matters.
he was a Baathist and a secular totalotarian socialist, he was the avowed enemy of relgious extremists within Islam,
Fine. I don't have a problem with this as a fact.
he hated the U.S. , but that was coincidental. Its very improbable that he had any WMDs (to date none have been found), and it most likely that this was the pretext used to railroad the UN and anti-war sentiments in the UN (as well as misgivings in America about the wisdom of the war).
Again, leaving out the mind reading we still have a good fact there about the WMDs...extended even to say that he, indeed, did not have WMDs or the capability to deliver any such weapons to US soil. Additionally, I don't believe he hated the US.
The Regieme was easily toppled in 2003, it was hated in Iraq by most people, especially [by] non-Sunni muslims, and his military were incompetent, poorly led, and ill-equiped to fight anyone, let alone the U.S. The invasion was easy, holding and rebuilding the country is a nightmare, and probably impossible for the U.S. to do now at this stage.
OK but I cut out all the predictive stuff.
The public in the U.S. now are obviously not very happy with all of this and want a change, what exactly that is going to be, or how its going to work, I have no idea.
The elections proved this fairly well.
The Iraq war has now of course become the cause celebre for Arabs...
This is an important fact for other discussions. There are more extremists now than before the invasion.
That was a very lengthy and well thought out post. I wanted to go through and clip out what I think are actual facts you add to our list...since we are all working together now. I saved all the bits that I clipped out with my comments and could go through why I clipped them individually. But this post is long enough for now.
Galbally;455529 wrote:
Saddam Hussien was indeed a cruel despot
despot implies cruel so to mention that is biasing the statement to mean more cruel than other despots
a Baathist
This is a fact on it's own. It means nothing other than that Saddam is a Baathist. It's inclusion in the list of facts is subject to questions of valid relevance but I will allow that it is a fact.
The U.S. and the West supported Saddam in the past and were indirectly complicit in some of the things he is responisble for, as were others.
Taking out the last, ambiguous part, this can be shown to be a fact. "the West" needs to be defined as there is no country by that name. Additional note: it is not Iraq on trial here so the names of the corresponding heads of state ought to be mentioned, not hiding behind the name of their state.
When Saddams postion after the Iran-Iraq war finished became unstable at home, he went for broke, tried to gain access to the oil reserves of the gulf and this brought him into conflict with the west, whom he infuriated by turning on them and threatening the world economy and other arab countries, [who also despised him with the exception of Syria (also a Baathist regieme)]. His regieme was deated in a war 1990 and removed from Kuwait, it was decided at the time that an invasion of Iraq would be counterproductive and open a bigger can of worms than Saddam himself (this has proven to be an accurate assessment).
That's a pretty good summary of the first Gulf War. It needs to be kept in mind that Kuwait is considered a province of Iraq by Saddam.
Since that time he has been an enemy of the West, while also being an enemy of most of his neighbours.
Again, "the West" is not a country. For example: Canada is part of "the West" yet would hardly say that Iraq was an "enemy". I'm fine with this as a fact, it just needs the names of countries inserted.
After Sept 11th, some people in the U.S. administration saw a window of opportunity to get Saddam, as I think they regretted not doing it in 1990, they also knew he was weak, and that an easy victory could be secured in what is a very difficult and not very well understood conflict between the West and miitant Islamic jihaddists.
Some might debate this but I will accept this as fact with the blue text removed of trying to mind read.
Saddam had nothing to do with Septmber 11th
Even GW Bush has said this. This is a great big fact that has been ignored in other matters.
he was a Baathist and a secular totalotarian socialist, he was the avowed enemy of relgious extremists within Islam,
Fine. I don't have a problem with this as a fact.
he hated the U.S. , but that was coincidental. Its very improbable that he had any WMDs (to date none have been found), and it most likely that this was the pretext used to railroad the UN and anti-war sentiments in the UN (as well as misgivings in America about the wisdom of the war).
Again, leaving out the mind reading we still have a good fact there about the WMDs...extended even to say that he, indeed, did not have WMDs or the capability to deliver any such weapons to US soil. Additionally, I don't believe he hated the US.
The Regieme was easily toppled in 2003, it was hated in Iraq by most people, especially [by] non-Sunni muslims, and his military were incompetent, poorly led, and ill-equiped to fight anyone, let alone the U.S. The invasion was easy, holding and rebuilding the country is a nightmare, and probably impossible for the U.S. to do now at this stage.
OK but I cut out all the predictive stuff.
The public in the U.S. now are obviously not very happy with all of this and want a change, what exactly that is going to be, or how its going to work, I have no idea.
The elections proved this fairly well.
The Iraq war has now of course become the cause celebre for Arabs...
This is an important fact for other discussions. There are more extremists now than before the invasion.
That was a very lengthy and well thought out post. I wanted to go through and clip out what I think are actual facts you add to our list...since we are all working together now. I saved all the bits that I clipped out with my comments and could go through why I clipped them individually. But this post is long enough for now.
Death For Saddam
Galbally;456053 wrote: In terms of point 3...
From the BBC
[In regards to the] charge against Saddam Hussein [for] the killing of more than 140 men in the mostly Shia village of Dujail after a failed 1982 assassination attempt against him.
Mr Ani told the BBC that the defence will argue that those killed had been found guilty under Iraq's laws and Saddam's only role was to sign their death warrants - in the same way that George W Bush signed 152 death warrants while he was governor of Texas.
"These people were tried and found guilty and sentenced to death according to the Iraqi criminal code,"...
Each case against Saddam should be considered individually as to what jurisdiction they fall under and whether or not immunity applies.
From the BBC
[In regards to the] charge against Saddam Hussein [for] the killing of more than 140 men in the mostly Shia village of Dujail after a failed 1982 assassination attempt against him.
Mr Ani told the BBC that the defence will argue that those killed had been found guilty under Iraq's laws and Saddam's only role was to sign their death warrants - in the same way that George W Bush signed 152 death warrants while he was governor of Texas.
"These people were tried and found guilty and sentenced to death according to the Iraqi criminal code,"...
Each case against Saddam should be considered individually as to what jurisdiction they fall under and whether or not immunity applies.