Saddam Husseins Hanging. Your Opinion?

[hallenrm]

Good research KAC, congrats :)

[TheFaithfulStone]

The moral of this story is that if you train an attack dog, you might not want to let it play with the baby?

 

Okay. It is a fact that America did arm Saddam against Iran, and provided at least tacit support for Bin Laden's mujahadeen during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

 

I hardly think that frees Bin Laden or Saddam from their culpability.

 

For an analogy that's a little less serious - My neighbor is a jerk - he throws his dogs poop over the fence into my yard. If his house gets hit by a tornado, and I go rescue him - is it my fault that he throws poop in my yard again later?

 

Given Iran vs Iraq which is the lesser of two evils? (Think like it's 1980.) Given the Soviet Union vs. Osama bin Laden? (Think like it's 1980.)

 

Sure, in hindsight it seems dumb, but wouldn't be kicking ourselves for letting the Soviets take over Afghanistan & Pakistan, or for letting Iran's "Islamic Revolution" run over large swaths of the Middle East?

 

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. The ex-enemy of my ex-enemy is a complex relationship not given to aphorisms.

 

TFS

[IDMclean]

Never said anything about releasing them from culpability. Just noting that we have culpability (fault), accountability (debt) and responsibility (causation) to correct the damages we have done in that region of the world in our blind effort to stop the "evil" communist of the world...

 

Fluoridation is the most monstrously conceived and dangerous communist plot we have ever had to face.

-General Jack D. Ripper

 

Anyway one spins it I don't think that Saddam should have been hung. It's not going to fix any of the problems in Iraq past, current or future. Nor do I think him to be the only source of the many issues of that region of the world, nor do I think the U.S. to be completely innocent of his succession, and conduct as leader of Iraq.

[Freddy]

The moral of this story is that if you train an attack dog, you might not want to let it play with the baby?

 

Okay. It is a fact that America did arm Saddam against Iran, and provided at least tacit support for Bin Laden's mujahadeen during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

 

I hardly think that frees Bin Laden or Saddam from their culpability.

 

Given Iran vs Iraq which is the lesser of two evils? (Think like it's 1980.) Given the Soviet Union vs. Osama bin Laden? (Think like it's 1980.)

 

Sure, in hindsight it seems dumb, but wouldn't be kicking ourselves for letting the Soviets take over Afghanistan & Pakistan, or for letting Iran's "Islamic Revolution" run over large swaths of the Middle East?

 

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. The ex-enemy of my ex-enemy is a complex relationship not given to aphorisms.

 

TFS

America did not arm Iraq. America gave Saddam loans and some weapons. America supported the Afgan mujahadeen, and not bin Laden.

 

From Wikipedia:

Peter Bergen, a CNN journalist and adjunct professor who is known for conducting the first television interview with Osama bin Laden in 1997, refuted Cook's notion, stating on August 15, 2006, the following:

 

“The story about bin Laden and the CIA -- that the CIA funded bin Laden or trained bin Laden -- is simply a folk myth. There's no evidence of this. In fact, there are very few things that bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and the U.S. government agree on. They all agree that they didn't have a relationship in the 1980s. And they wouldn't have needed to. Bin Laden had his own money, he was anti-American and he was operating secretly and independently.

 

The real story here is the CIA didn't really have a clue about who this guy was until 1996 when they set up a unit to really start tracking him.[39]”

 

"It is more likely that the CIA was concerned and watching Osama bin Laden at least by early 1995 due to the discovery of the Oplan Bojinka plot which in part involved a suicide airplane attack on CIA Headquarters."

 

Also, it was the USSR versus Afgan mujahadeen, not bin Laden

[Zythryn]

What gives a government the moral ability to kill somebody? Even if they really, really deserved it (like Saddam.)

 

When the government takes on the responsibility to protect it's citizens

AND

The government can find no other way to protect it's citizens from an individual that will kill again.

 

Now, I would far prefer that the government cure mass murderers, or lock them up and never release them. I have yet to see a government capable of doing so.

 

In Saddam's case, I believe locking him away will still not be sufficient as others will kill in his name as long as there is a chance of getting him released.

[hallenrm]

I hava a simple question on morality and justice. Can a person/institution/organization being accused of immoral/criminal acts judge/sentence another criminal.

 

The comments of Freddy in the recent post are no less apologies for the acts of CIA then is my post which has been dubbed BS by Buffy

 

:cup:

[Buffy]

I hava a simple question on morality and justice. Can a person/institution/organization being accused of immoral/criminal acts judge/sentence another criminal.

Apparently some think not. It creates some interesting dilemma's that are at the heart of some of your earlier posts in this thread. Try turning it around: No entity on earth is without some moral taint, therefore there should be no laws, no police and no justice system. Would that work?

 

The judge might be moral, but one person on the jury was not. Let them go? What if it was 11 immoral people who voted for acquital and pressure the one moral person into going along. Is it okay to violate double jeopardy?

 

As I always say, if you think morality is black and white, you need to read more Melville...

The comments of Freddy in the recent post are no less apologies for the acts of CIA then is my post which has been dubbed BS by Buffy:cup:

Oops! You got caught by yet another one of Buffy's Obscure Cultural References! I was not *calling* your statement BS, I was refering to a line in the movie Repo Man which gives pause for reflection on the topic!

[Duke lies dying of a gunshot wound after unsuccessfully holding up a mini-mart]

Duke: The lights are growing dim Otto. I know a life of crime has led me to this sorry fate, and yet, I blame society. Society made me what I am.

Otto: That's bullshit. You're a white suburban punk just like me.

Duke: Yeah, but it still hurts.

I would *never* call any of your statements BS!

 

Beguilingly,

Buffy

[paigetheoracle]

The question isn't should Saddam have hanged but would you personally have done it and if you did, what would that act say about you? The people who jeered him were as sick and cowardly - how could he fight back? He at least died with some dignity and with courage, which is more than his captors showed him and if you look at the appalling 'disrespect' American troops have shown the Iraqi people during this entire conflict (Watch excerpts from Michael Moore's Farenheit 9/11, where troops open fire on unarmed civilians and the comments they make, which were censored out of news reports of the time).

 

Am I saying good me/bad you (Americans?). No but I am saying that this behaviour, whether by Saddam, American troops or anyone else degrades us all. None of us is perfect and this isn't about attacking someone else but in trying to see how such behaviour works against all our benefits. The world is going from bad to worse because it is taking the easy (stupid) course. This world is going nowhere at present and I personally am ashamed to be a part of it. Things only work if you put the effort and the guts into them, to make them work and all I see is moral and morale degradation because nobody has the will to stand up and die for their beliefs and at least Saddam could.

[Freddy]

I hava a simple question on morality and justice. Can a person/institution/organization being accused of immoral/criminal acts judge/sentence another criminal.

 

The comments of Freddy in the recent post are no less apologies for the acts of CIA then is my post which has been dubbed BS by Buffy

 

:)

No, not an apology, just the facts. Between 1983-1988 the US supplied Iraq arms. The USSR, France, PRC, and Egypt also did on much larger scales from 1973-1990. Total arms supplied by the US to Iraq accounted for 0.5% of all countries who sold arms to Iraq. The US did not arm Iraq but the USSR (68.9%), France (12.7%), PRC (11.8), Egypt (1.3%) and all others (4.8%) surely did.

See link below: Arms sales to Iraq 1973-1990 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

What does bother me is the US sold Iraq materials to make chemical and biological weapons which is against the Geneva convention. However, those weapons were to be used on Iranian troops during the war not on Iraqi Kurds, 5 days after the cease fire. What were Reagan and Bush Sr. thinking?

[IDMclean]

I will note, Freddy, that there is a very real possibility that Hussein did not in fact gas the kurds of his country.

 

It came up as an article in recent news that there was the possibility that the people responisible for the gassing of the Kurds were in fact the Iranians, and not the Iraqians.

 

Saddam could call CIA in his defense

 

Furthermore, Freddy, I will refer you to my post on research regarding the topic, as it would seem evident to me that you did not read any, perhaps, of the resources I provided on the subject of America and Bin Laden.

[TheBigDog]

Furthermore, Freddy, I will refer you to my post on research regarding the topic, as it would seem evident to me that you did not read any, perhaps, of the resources I provided on the subject of America and Bin Laden.

Or he found reason to disbelieve their merit and their conclusions. More on that coming.

 

Bill

[paigetheoracle]

Another thought about all this propaganda (Who did what to whom justification). "Let he who is without sin caste the first stone" (I suggest Bill Wyman as he seems the least hypocritical when compared with say Mick Jagger but back to business...). We first condemn (villify) those we wish to attack physically. In other words, in the blame game, we have to make out we're the good guys and those we're attacking are the bad, in order to say that we were right to do what we did in revenge (The language of the playground "He started it first!"). Evil is intolerance pure and simple. It is as a measurable quantity in the form of any kind of destruction - ergo, if you destroy 'anything' you're evil (See Jesus quote above and why he said it.

 

Do you know why you should take nobody's 'word' but check everybody's motive? (use your eyes). Because people lie and have reason to lie, so you can only trust what you see and experience in the present. This is where philosophy comes into its own as a science of the soul but with a greater range than psychology. Who can you trust? No-one (We all lie and lie about lying). What can you trust? Nothing but your own immediate senses and experience (Appearances can be deceptive - some things are not clear as to identity, until A) You get close enough to identify them or Can separate them out from their backgrounds as individual objects).

 

I know some people will find it hard to accept what I say about this and will simply ignore it. This is denial and just another part of the picture but well known in psychotherapeutical circles.

 

How does philosophy differ from science? Philosophy wants to know how we tick - science wants to know how everything else ticks but ourselves. If you think this is off the subject, the question is who is asking it and why.

[Spiked Blood]

Saddam was hanged? Where have I been?

 

Is it wrong that I feel sorry for the little guy? Here he was just trying to run a country.. you call him evil, I call him efficient!

 

Hanging sucks. It's so mechanical and methodical, maniacal and melodical..(you know with the whoosh and then the crack!)

 

Drop him in a ring with some tigers, let him die fighting.

[infamous]

 

Drop him in a ring with some tigers, let him die fighting.

This imagination gives rise to visions of gladiators and the Roman coliseum my friend. Quite effective allbeit cruel and unusual.....................Infy

[TheBigDog]

Evil is intolerance pure and simple.

What do you call the tolerance of evil?

 

Bill

[Michaelangelica]

Hanging Hussein for the wrong crime kept America's dirty laundry hidden | The Japan Times Online

Sunday, Jan. 7, 2007

 

Hanging Hussein for the wrong crime kept America's dirty laundry hidden

 

By GWYNNE DYER

 

LONDON -- It was not the Iraqi government but its American masters that chose to execute Saddam Hussein in a great rush as soon as the first sentence was confirmed, thus canceling all the other trials on far graver charges that awaited him. The current Iraqi government had nothing to hide if those trials went ahead; the U.S. government did.

 

Cast your mind back to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in March 2003. Washington's pretext for war then was Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, with barely a word about bringing democracy to the downtrodden Iraqi people. But to persuade us that Hussein's WMD were a threat to the whole world, we were told a lot about how wicked he was, how he had even "gassed his own people."

 

Well, there weren't any weapons of mass destruction, so the script was changed to say the war was about bringing democracy to Iraq. That required Hussein to be a monstrous villain (which he certainly was), and it needed dramatic supporting stories: So let's try him for the slaughter of the Kurds in 1988.

[Freddy]

I will note, Freddy, that there is a very real possibility that Hussein did not in fact gas the kurds of his country.

 

It came up as an article in recent news that there was the possibility that the people responisible for the gassing of the Kurds were in fact the Iranians, and not the Iraqians.

 

Saddam could call CIA in his defense

 

Furthermore, Freddy, I will refer you to my post on research regarding the topic, as it would seem evident to me that you did not read any, perhaps, of the resources I provided on the subject of America and Bin Laden.

No, I read it. Interesting but not conclusive. CIA involvement is not the issue. Saddam's crimes are. Even if he did not gas the Kurds he tortured and killed thousands of his own people. There is no evidence of US involvement with bin Laden in Afganistan. US supplied the Afgans not bin Laden. Bin Laden himself has said this and I copied and cited it an above post.