A Hanging in Bagdad:Saddam Hussein

[b.c.]

The reason that this war doesn't get a lot of press is baffling. I questioned the former president of Scotland at a political forum and asked why this was occuring. His answer: it was the USA's fault for not putting money into this conflict. I sked him why was this America' s problem and he had no answer.

The United Nations has a edict that if you classify a conflict as being genocide, which the Darfur conflict certinly is, then the UN is obligated to send troops. The UN will not classify Darfur as genocide. My understanding is that bands of Islam jihadists are murdering all non Islamic males and impregnating thru rape all the females inorder to make all the children Islamic by birth. Sounds like genocide to me.

Well, that and bombing the hell out of women and children in villages and schools, killing running off or seizing all medical aid and food relief sent into the region, the wholesale slaughter of families, and the forced conscripting of young adult males into their army to do much of the dirty work.

FAct is, there is indeed a U.S. federal law calling the conflict exactly that: genocide. It called the Sudan Peace Act, signed into law by George Bush in 2002. The U.N. also has been trying to get a peace keeping force on ground in the area to help put an end to the current Darfur Conflict (yet another extension of the original conflict). But al-Bashir is fighting this effort, calling the U.N. a puppet of the Jewish state (sounds familiar?) In the book of despots and tyrants he is apparently one "class act". So if we're all so gung-ho on civil liberties, crimes against humanity and such...

Well, see for yourself:

Second Sudanese Civil War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sudan Peace Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Omar al-Bashir, Dictator of the Month May, 2005

Omar al-Bashir

Rice outraged by treatment of her staffers in Sudan / Apology does little to ease tense situation

 

[HazelGod]

Honestly, why do you feel it was okay for President Clinton to lie under oath?

Nobody here has advanced any such contention. I'm honestly a bit puzzled as to why you think someone has...?

 

[kalipygian]

The reason that this war doesn't get a lot of press is baffling. I questioned the former president of Scotland at a political forum and asked why this was occuring. His answer: it was the USA's fault for not putting money into this conflict. I sked him why was this America' s problem and he had no answer.

The United Nations has a edict that if you classify a conflict as being genocide, which the Darfur conflict certinly is, then the UN is obligated to send troops. The UN will not classify Darfur as genocide. My understanding is that bands of Islam jihadists are murdering all non Islamic males and impregnating thru rape all the females inorder to make all the children Islamic by birth. Sounds like genocide to me.

Former president of Scotland?

It's news to me that the monarchy has been abolished.

 

[swordfishME]

Former president of Scotland?

It's news to me that the monarchy has been abolished.

I am sure it will be news to the Queen too..

I am all for people deciding the fate of their own despots, but am distraught over this execution. This can and I am afraid will be disastrous for IRAQ for a long time. If GWB does not think that Iraq was in a state of civil war before this execution, I am afraid that after the hanging, it will even meet his denialist definition of a civil war. Unfortunately, the sectarian divisions in the country make it impossible for the version of democracy being foisted on them to ever work.

Whatver you all may think of Saddam Hussien and the US and their reasons for this invasion, I hope you can join me in keeping the people of Iraq in your thoughts and prayers.

 

[Puntie]

A very good point - perhaps only time will tell.

I don't quite agree with your timeline of events, but I am not sure about the connections of oil and the war on terror.

I think that they were probably planning to get him after he kicked out the inspectors in 1998 when he did have WMD. But then 9/11 happened and everything went heywire and muddled into one big mess in the region.

Whether this is all part of a long term strategy for oil is a question for others.

Saddam had WMD???? EH if he did do ye not think that he'd still have had them in 2003? There was no WMD!! There is no reason for this attack on a soverign state, even though Saddam was a dictator. Pinochet was a dictator that killed a lot of people as was Mobutu but the US still gave them Billions of dollars. Why did they not attack Chile or Zaire (now DRC)?? Because there was nothing there that they wanted. 9/11 is just an excuse, Saddam had nothing to do with it at all, nor did he condone it. Saudi Arabia on the other hand had a lot to do with it, BUT Dubya is friends with all the Saudi's, and he couldnt go after them. Oil has a lot to do with this war on terror in both Iraq and in Afganistan.

 

[Puntie]

A person cannot be Pro-life and support an execution, despite his horrific actions

 

[feely]

Former president of Scotland?

It's news to me that the monarchy has been abolished.

Threw me aswell that did. Not only the President of scotland, but the former one at that! When did the second get elected?

 

[MASSIVEPKGO_CHUCK]

A person cannot be Pro-life and support an execution, despite his horrific actions

Sure they can! haven't you ever heard of hypocrosy?

 

[D_Humper E Bogart]

Exactly why I stay politically neutral. I don't remember a US political party or a British one for that matter, that is anti-war.

 

[Pecker]

A person cannot be Pro-life and support an execution, despite his horrific actions

That's where political correctness has messed up, Puntie. The correct term is "anti-abortion," which has nothing whatsoever to do with executing criminals.

 

[Puntie]

That's where political correctness has messed up, Puntie. The correct term is "anti-abortion," which has nothing whatsoever to do with executing criminals.

Pro-life means exactly what it says - "Pro-life" - everybody has the right to life. Just because 'anti-abortionist' use this term does not mean that 'anti-abortion' is solely what it means.

Wiktionary's (Wikipedia) meaning ----

Adjective
pro-life

1. in favor of anti-abortion legislation;
2. opposed to right-to-die legislation
3. favoring Christian views of medical and social issues

Retrieved from "http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pro-life"

Dictionary.com's meaning ---

opposed to legalized abortion; right-to-life.

The RIGHT-TO-LIFE is what it says, no??? Everyone has the right to life no matter what they have done. Everyone.

 

[madame_zora]

I'm pro-choice, and so are most religious people, although they won't admit it. They CHOOSE what people are okay to kill, and which are not. They CHOOSE which wars to support, they CHOOSE what laws to support.
They CHOOSE how to interpret the 10 commandments. Perhaps they were really just suggestions?

Who would Jesus, the man who said "Put away your swords" bomb? It's not just a pop culture question, it's an honest and real one. Still, religion has been one of the most frequent reasons for war. I must say, I'm not at all impressed with religious ppl's zeal. They focus on whatever cause their leaders present to them as important, as long as it doesn't require any self-examination. They believe things that are contrary, and say "so what?"

See, I like Jesus a great deal, but I don't claim Him as my spiritual mentor. I find value in the Bible, but not as my guidebook for life.

I support capital punishment when there is certainty of the guilt of the defendant, which there clearly was here. I don't believe in "sin" but I do believe in hypocricy because I see it all too often.

Pro-life, my hairy fucking ass! This country is suffering from a severe case of infantilism, and I can't wait until it gets out of its diapers.

 

[Puntie]

Sorry most wars are not about religion. Religion is just used as an excuse for war. Resources are the main reasons for most wars that are happening at the minute and wars that happened in the past.

 

[tallicadude]

I am reluctant to think in absolutes when it comes to this subject. It seems that the discussion over Saddam's execution has pushed a lot of people's buttons. I would like to apologize upfront for the of quotation marks and the words "fact" and sectarian, although I shall try and restrain myself...

There is often talk of "western" governments demonizing leaders of "rogue states" for propaganda purposes. Slobodan Milosevic and Saddam are just two examples, but there surely are many more (Milosevic was the "Devil from Dedinje" and "The Butcher of the Balkans", Saddam the "Butcher of Baghdad" - butcher seems to be a common catchphrase when describing tyrants).

I believe that your opinion on the execution and the circumstances surrounding it depend at least partially on the kind of news you watch or read as well. More conservative news stations and publications prefer to be "objective" and use what i'll simply call "empty language" (just stating the facts if you may, nothing else), whereas slightly more progressive publications (i.e new statesman, the independent, truthdig.com) denounce the execution as being "illegal" and creating more problems than it solves.

What the execution of Saddam has done is effectively turn a perpetrator into a victim. (Title of the independent yesterday: "From Monster to Martyr?") The trial was not an outright farce, but the fact that lenient judges were forced to resign and defense laywers were murdered simply feeds the suspicions of a sectarian "kangaroo court". Saddam was finally hanged for ordering the murder of 148 men and boys in Dujail in the early 80's after an attempt on his life, NOT the Halabjah nerve gas attack on Kurds. The political rivals and fellow Sunnis that were slaughtered on his orders weren't even subject of a court case.

(Here's a fun historical fact: Ronald Reagan sent Rumsfeldt to Iraq as a special envoy to "forge a working alliance" in 1983, one year AFTER the crimes for which he was hanged...)

I'm very uneasy when it comes to the death penalty. I understand the arguments for and against it, yet at the end of the day I tend to think that by executing someone (especially in this way) "we" are sinking down to "their" level. The fact that this has been carried out in what is supposed to be a "democracy" imbued with "western" values simply exposes the empty rhetoric of our leaders. I find Maliki's comment that "Our respect for human rights requires us to execute him" rather trivial.

I better stop now, but finally i would like to recommend some articles i found particularly insightful and not as amnesic as some.

Robert Scheer: A Monster of our Creation

Robert Fisk article (my favourite Middle east journalist)

Tariq Ali: Conveniently Forgotten

Medialens article (a bit leftish/anti-imperialist )

peace out.

 

[D_Humper E Bogart]

Sorry most wars are not about religion. Religion is just used as an excuse for war. Resources are the main reasons for most wars that are happening at the minute and wars that happened in the past.

Well, we sure as hell like killing Christians.

That was sarcastic.

Yeah, resources, natural wealth...of course the people never benefit from these, and nor do the soldiers who get ground into mush.

Time to crank up the recruitment drive!