Will Saddam Hussein's Execution Lead to Civil War in Iraq?

[Werg22]

Video footage supports the claim that this was a specious operation. Retaliation seems the highlight of the process. It can be asserted that it was also socio-political background; an Iraqi leader has never left power without loosing his life. This "convention" still exists in Iraq.

My take is that the whole idea of Iraq is broken at its core; creating a democratic pro-West state in the Middle-East is not achievable by simply removing a despot among many others. Even more discouraging, we nourished hatred above anything else. It has to be understood that tribal mentality is strong in the Arab world, meaning that there is always "loyalty to the end" towards whoever is the clan leader. Iraqis, in their current state, are divided among clans, this depending on which religious or ethnical division they pertain. This said, a dictator will be supported by whatever clans he is in. I strongly believe that as soon as we leave - and that will be probably before the end of the decade - a dictatorship will follow.

 

[Yonoz]

A trial dealing with the treatment of the Kurds might uncover some matters that the current authorities may wish to keep hidden.

 

[russ_watters]

Video footage supports the claim that this was a specious operation.

The taunts of onlookers (and even guards) don't have a whole lot to do with the trial itself.

 

[devil-fire]

im not saying it wasn't practical to only prosecute him of one crime and one punishment. all I am saying is that unless punishment is the only purpose of justice (i would contest that in this case, saddam being dead is of little importance in this trial, as he would not be a threat to these crimes being repeated), then there was no justice in all those other crimes he committed. to ignore the majority of his crimes shows that there is more to this trial then just the pursuit of justice.

to include a time restriction on the prosecution of a person like saddam may vary well be practical for political or other reasons, but that is a less then perfect judicial system.

Why? Historians are not bound by court decisions and neither are you. You are quite free to decide for yourself whether you think OJ really did kill his wife.

the difference between the lack of prosecution of the crimes of saddam and the guilt or innocence of OJ simpson is that OJ had a trial. if i go around claiming OJ was guilty, i don't have a leg to stand on because anyone else can contest my views with a simple "no. he was proved innocent in a court of law". if a sunni and a shia are going to debate the oppression of the sunnis at the hands of saddam, shias can say "it wasn't that bad. you had your trial of saddam and he only murdered 148 people and illegal arrest of 399 others. and for the conviction of this man, tens of thousands of iraqs are dead". in this situation, i think it would be difficult for these two people to agree on the future of a country.

 

[russ_watters]

im not saying it wasn't practical to only prosecute him of one crime and one punishment. all I am saying is that unless punishment is the only purpose of justice [snip], then there was no justice in all those other crimes he committed. to ignore the majority of his crimes shows that there is more to this trial then just the pursuit of justice.

What is your definition of justice? If justice is just doing what is right (by punishing him), then since you can only execute him once, holding extra trials does nothing to serve justice.

i would contest that in this case, saddam being dead is of little importance in this trial, as he would not be a threat to these crimes being repeated.

You mean if they just held him in jail he would not be a threat? I find it hard to believe you would believe that. He was essentially a living martyr and got to be on display on a daily basis. That is in and of itself a bad thing, but more to the point, as long as a person is alive, they have opportunities to do more bad things. And now you are arguing against the death penalty as well. Change his sentence it to life in prison and that doesn't change the equation for determining justice. So that's a strawman.

to include a time restriction on the prosecution of a person like saddam may vary well be practical for political or other reasons, but that is a less then perfect judicial system.

No one said anything about a time restriction either. That's a strawman too.

the difference between the lack of prosecution of the crimes of saddam and the guilt or innocence of OJ simpson is that OJ had a trial. if i go around claiming OJ was guilty, i don't have a leg to stand on because anyone else can contest my views with a simple "no.

Would they be right/reasonable to do that? Are you saying that juries are infallible or that we (or historians) should treat them as such? You've implied this before - do you really believe that?

And yes, Saddam did not have a trial for the other crimes -- and that means you are not bound by any jury decision and are free to make up your own mind from the available facts. You are objecting to something that does not apply.

if a sunni and a shia are going to debate the oppression of the sunnis at the hands of saddam, shias can say "it wasn't that bad. you had your trial of saddam and he only murdered 148 people and illegal arrest of 399 others. and for the conviction of this man, tens of thousands of iraqs are dead". in this situation, i think it would be difficult for these two people to agree on the future of a country.

They could argue that, but that would be a strawman as well, for the reasons discussed above.

 

[turbo]

im not saying it wasn't practical to only prosecute him of one crime and one punishment. all I am saying is that unless punishment is the only purpose of justice (i would contest that in this case, saddam being dead is of little importance in this trial, as he would not be a threat to these crimes being repeated), then there was no justice in all those other crimes he committed. to ignore the majority of his crimes shows that there is more to this trial then just the pursuit of justice.

By convicting Saddam of an early crime and not lumping his whole career in the charges, the administration (yes, the US administration that orchestrated the trial and held Saddam until convicted) avoided embarrassing questions about the complicity of the Reagan and Bush administrations in Saddam's acquisition of WMDs, delivery systems, and intelligence. Saddam was their bully-boy in the ME until he invaded Kuwait and they made sure that he was well-equipped.

 

[devil-fire]

thats an interesting point turbo

 

[edward]

By convicting Saddam of an early crime and not lumping his whole career in the charges, the administration (yes, the US administration that orchestrated the trial and held Saddam until convicted) avoided embarrassing questions about the complicity of the Reagan and Bush administrations in Saddam's acquisition of WMDs, delivery systems, and intelligence. Saddam was their bully-boy in the ME until he invaded Kuwait and they made sure that he was well-equipped.

Exactly. That could be why this convienient little "rope" trick was used. We have eliminated the possibility of bringing out the evidence that we had a very nasty collusion with Saddam in the eighties.

After the first Gulf war Iraq defaulted on over $400 million in loans that were backed by the U.S, department of Agriculture. The taxpayers picked up the tab.

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/Pre_96/February95/94.txt.html

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Yet the ire of Sunnis will be directed at the Bush admin.
It seems to me that the allied forces ought to be a bit more machiavellian:
A "prince" who restrains a local regime backed by him may gain more sympathy in the population at large by showing "mercy" in certain instances by overriding the local regime's policy.

Can you really advocate the subtle and clever political machinations of Machiavelli to the strategy of the Bush regime?
Bush pobably thinks The Prince is an autobiaography about Prince Charles.

I personally think the whole thing has been handled quite badly, and that they should have left sentencing until the trial had actually finished.

The film of the event is pretty horrible to watch; I can understand the biterness and resentment towards this man, but in this case it's more important than ever to make sure the whole process from the trial to justice is above reproach, it seems to me this appears little more than a revenge killing to some.

I didn't have time to read through the whole thread so apologies if I've stated anything that's already been noted.

 

[grant9076]

After having spent many months in the Middle East, I know that it is the norm to carry out executions quickly(within a month) and in public for death penalty offenses. Frankly, I am surprised that it took so long.

Saddam was their bully-boy in the ME until he invaded Kuwait and they made sure that he was well-equipped.

Also, the Iraqi arsenal includes many systems such as Mig 25's, Mig 29's Mirage F-1's, SA-3's etc. Did the USA equip them with those too?

 

[turbo]

After having spent many months in the Middle East, I know that it is the norm to carry out executions quickly(within a month) and in public for death penalty offenses. Frankly, I am surprised that it took so long.



Also, the Iraqi arsenal includes many systems such as Mig 25's, Mig 29's Mirage F-1's, SA-3's etc. Did the USA equip them with those too?

The US was not the only presence to contribute to Iraq's armament, nor did I say that it was. Every regional presence will attract support from a variety of sources. Anyone who suggests otherwise is naive or disingenuous.

 

[grant9076]

I am only trying to look at things in the proper perspective.

When you said:

Saddam was their bully-boy in the ME

and

and they made sure that he was well-equipped.

It implies either that:

1. Iraq received more weapon systems from the USA than from any other country.

or

2. USA supplied more weapon systems to Iraq than to any other country in the region.

With regards to implication number 1, the Russians supplied them with:
SS-1 (Scud Missiles), SA-2's, SA-6's, Tu-22's, Mig 21's, Su-24's, Su-25's etc.

With regards to implication number 2, the USA provided:
F-4's and F-16's to Turkey,
F-5's to Jordan
A-4's to Kuwait
F-4's and F-14's to Iran
F-15's to Saudi Arabia

Now my question is:
Exactly what kind of weapon systems did we provide to Iraq that exceeded those listed in either case?

Also, regarding the original topic of the thread, we are talking about a region of the world where someone who is caught with marijuana is likely to be executed in a couple of weeks. In this perspective, it is surprising that a man who is convicted of 148 counts of murder managed to reside above soil for this long. In addition, when someone is found guilty of a capital offense, they see no point in deferring his punishment solely because he is accused of another offense that is much more serious than the aforementioned. As much as I do not care for the culture, I must concede that within the context of their justice system, they have a valid argument.

 

[Anttech]

How could it be? The Bush admin isn't executing him.

You don't think this looks bad? It was a racist, sectarian execution, by a government propped up by Bush.

Saddam has turned from Brutal evil Dictator to Martyr...

 

[Gokul43201]

I am only trying to look at things in the proper perspective.

When you said:

blah

and [

blah'

It implies either that:

1. Iraq received more weapon systems from the USA than from any other country.

or

2. USA supplied more weapon systems to Iraq than to any other country in the region.

There's a flaw in the argument. It neglects the indigenous capability of the countries in question and it neglects their relative strengths. To make a simplification for the sake of argument, let there be 3 countries in the region (A, B and C), and let their total military capability be represented by the number of missiles they possess. A has 100 missiles, B has 500, and C has 550. Currently C has the largest number and will win any 2-nation conflict, making C the "bully-boy" in the region so long as A and B don't have an alliance. Now, if I sell 200 missiles to A and 100 missiles to B, I've made B the "bully-boy" despite having sold them fewer missiles than another country in the region. Also, the participation of other sellers does not exclude my role, it only includes theirs as well.

Furthermore, no relevance to the context of timeline was considered. The fact that I refuse to sell missiles today doesn't negate the fact that I did sell missiles at a crucial time (some Y years ago), when B and C were engaged in conflict, and I wanted B to win.

Also, regarding the original topic of the thread, we are talking about a region of the world where someone who is caught with marijuana is likely to be executed in a couple of weeks. In this perspective, it is surprising that a man who is convicted of 148 counts of murder managed to reside above soil for this long. In addition, when someone is found guilty of a capital offense, they see no point in deferring his punishment solely because he is accused of another offense that is much more serious than the aforementioned.

Excellent point.

 

[russ_watters]

I personally think the whole thing has been handled quite badly, and that they should have left sentencing until the trial had actually finished.

Could you clarify what you mean by that? Saddam had two trials and both finished. He was tried, convicted, and sentenced, then got an appeal and was tried, convicted and sentenced again.

 

[russ_watters]

Regarding Turbo-1's point, there is no need to play the who-sold-him-what? game. The major crime(s) that he could/should have been tried for was what he did to the Kurds and he neither got weapons nor political backing from the US for that.

The other crimes he could have been convicted for were simply other internal murders he oversaw and also have nothing to do with who sold him what weapons. I'm sure the company who sold him his plastic shredders (regardless of where they were from) had no idea he wasn't going to use them to shred plastic.

 

[Anttech]

Could you clarify what you mean by that? Saddam had two trials and both finished. He was tried, convicted, and sentenced, then got an appeal and was tried, convicted and sentenced again.

He was tried and convicted for the lesser of his crimes. The shei just wanted a hanging, they got their way.. The whole thing is a JOKE and looks so bad internationally --- kangaroo court followed by a KKK type lynching --- made an evil man look like a martyr.

Is this what the American definition of "spreading democracy" looks like? Because it is what it has turned out like, hate to say "told you so" but hey I did and so did many others. Sadams execution was a very bad thing, this whole war has been from day 1.

The REAL reasons why he was executed so quickly are because the Shei and the US Admin had a common interest Saddam deposed of ASAP. Bushco would have HATED to have a real trail, and have even more unsightly political scandal come to the forefront!

 

[Moridin]

He was tried and convicted for the lesser of his crimes. The shei just wanted a hanging, they got their way.. The whole thing is a JOKE and looks so bad internationally --- kangaroo court followed by a KKK type lynching --- made an evil man look like a martyr.

I'm not sure how much you know about religious beliefs or martyrdom in Islam. I certainly do not claim to know everything. Saddam Hussein requested that he be shot in front of a firing squad, because that is how military personnel generally are executed in this particular region. He was denied it. He would have certainly become a martyr if he was executed in this way by the US - a violent death by the hands of his and his supporters enemies would immortalize him forever.

However, he was not executed by a firing squad, nor was he executed by the United States. Sure, there are always conspiracy theories, but the fact remains, that he was tried, convicted and executed by the Iraqi government. The method of execution is also interesting. He wasn't shot to death like a military, but hung like a simple human - a common thief if you will. An accurate trial and an execution like this has probably killed the entire concept.

Most anti imperialistic forces think as you do and spend a lot of energy in debating against common sense, just for another chance to try and attack the United States. When the war in Iraq started, a lot of people went down there as human shields, claiming that they wanted to protect innocents. Take the disaster in Sudan for instance. Do you see a lot of human shields there? No. That is because there is no imperialism to fight - it is only Muslims waging guerrilla warfare on blacks. The question is for what reasons you are against the issues in Iraq, especially with the rhetorics you are using.

You are asking if this is the United States' definition of spreading democracy? The answer is "Yes". Allowing Iraq and the Iraqi people to deal with Iraqi issues. More and more of the security is handed over to the Iraqi security forces and it was certainly not the US that directly killed Saddam.

Why are you saying that the execution of Saddam was a bad thing? It can be considered as a victory for Human Rights. It is really interesting to hear people claim that the execution is a loss for Human Rights. Most of them are a part of political organizations that generally are using such rhetorics although such issues spark little interested unless it can give political leverage.

Why would the Administration of the United States hate a long trial? More of the terrifying deeds that Saddam has carried out would surface and with that, more and more people would begin to abandon him. Yes, both the US and Iraq had a common interest in making Saddam a finished chapter. Nevertheless, perhaps in a different way that you are portraiting.

 

[Evo]

He was tried and convicted for the lesser of his crimes. The shei just wanted a hanging, they got their way.. The whole thing is a JOKE and looks so bad internationally --- kangaroo court followed by a KKK type lynching --- made an evil man look like a martyr.

I wouldn't say it made him look like a martyr. It made him look like what he was, a despised murderer. I think that given the volatile atmosphere between the various groups struggling for power in Iraq, the execution should have been private, but that's apparently not their style.

 

[Anttech]

I'm not sure how much you know about religious beliefs or martyrdom in Islam. I certainly do not claim to know everything. Saddam Hussein requested that he be shot in front of a firing squad, because that is how military personnel generally are executed in this particular region. He was denied it. He would have certainly become a martyr if he was executed in this way by the US - a violent death by the hands of his and his supporters enemies would immortalize him forever.

A martyr is simply one who dies for his/her principles or beliefs. The Sunni Muslims around the world now believe this to be the case now. He was executed not for what he did, but who he was -- THAT whether or not YOU or anyone accepts it, is exactly what it looks like now. How else do you explain the quickness of the execution, the dancing around his dead body, the sectarian chants before the noose was tightened around his neck... A common thief? No a racist revenge killing...

Most anti imperialistic forces think as you do and spend a lot of energy in debating against common sense, just for another chance to try and attack the United States. When the war in Iraq started, a lot of people went down there as human shields, claiming that they wanted to protect innocents. Take the disaster in Sudan for instance. Do you see a lot of human shields there? No. That is because there is no imperialism to fight - it is only Muslims waging guerrilla warfare on blacks. The question is for what reasons you are against the issues in Iraq, especially with the rhetorics you are using.

Because I understand the history of the place, I understand the Arab mentality and I understood from day 1 what a mess this would end up as is. That is why I am against it. Remember you can't justify an means with the end result. (That Argument is null now anyway)

You are asking if this is the United States' definition of spreading democracy? The answer is "Yes". Allowing Iraq and the Iraqi people to deal with Iraqi issues. More and more of the security is handed over to the Iraqi security forces and it was certainly not the US that directly killed Saddam.

Ohh come on, You think the Iraqi people are now able to deal with "Iraqi" issues? Why the hell are MORE American forces going in then? Iraq is in DEEP trouble now, and it is President George Bush's and his Neo-Con Administrations Fault. The US did not Kill him, but they pulled and still pull all the strings on the Iraqi government that did.

Why are you saying that the execution of Saddam was a bad thing? It can be considered as a victory for Human Rights.

A)Because I am flatly against the death penalty!
B)Because all it has done is segregated an already fragmented society, Iraq is already in a Civil war due to the US lead invasion, and now will escalate.

Why would the Administration of the United States hate a long trial? More of the terrifying deeds that Saddam has carried out would surface and with that, more and more people would begin to abandon him. Yes, both the US and Iraq had a common interest in making Saddam a finished chapter. Nevertheless, perhaps in a different way that you are portraiting.

Contrary to what your patriotic urges tell you, your government is quite capable of very underhand and out right self-centredness to the extend of evildoings to ensure you have the strongest economy in the world. The Saddam trail if held in Den Haag some people would have had egg on their face.

Sorry for being a realist...

 

[Anttech]

I wouldn't say it made him look like a martyr. It made him look like what he was, a despised murderer. I think that given the volatile atmosphere between the various groups struggling for power in Iraq, the execution should have been private, but that's apparently not their style.

Would a despised murder have race based chants shouted towards him, as he was being hung? Would he also have a differing sect's Leader shouted while he was being hung?

Anyway he was a bad man, a very heavy handed brutal dictator, who killed many people... The Chapter is finished, and a new one will now start, I have a feeling it will be an even worse for the Iraqi people.

 

[Moridin]

Your attempts to explain what a martyr is has failed. Everyone dies for their beliefs in one way or the other. In Islam, martyrdom has a special meaning which is a bit different from other religions or what you THINK you have heard. You CANNOT possibly speak for all the Sunni Muslims in the world. That should be self evident. Enough with the conspiracy theories. Saddam Hussein was executed for what he had done, even if the long lists of charges had not been finished. This trial has taken a very long time, the insurgency in Iraq escalating every day. Enough had been dealt with that it would have been an execution sentence anyway. The execution was not 'quick' in any way. The procedures was not 'quick' in any way. At all.

Since the middle east is experiencing the same religious wars as Europe did hundreds or even thousands of years ago at present, it can hardly come as a surprise that people are dancing and celebrating that someone is dead. Anyone would do that after 27 horrible years with the dictator Saddam Hussein and his killings of millions of people, many of which was on his direct order, something that has virtually no precedence in history. You call the execution of a mass murderer a racist killing? The reign of Saddam Hussein did not only make Shia Muslims suffer, but Sunni Muslims as well. That shouldn't come as a surprise to you, now should it? Are you sure you are not the one being prejudice against the United States after all?

Because I understand the history of the place, I understand the Arab mentality and I understood from day 1 what a mess this would end up as is. That is why I am against it. Remember you can't justify an means with the end result. (That Argument is null now anyway)

So you are actually saying that the reason that you are against the execution (and the war on Iraq indirectly) is that you 'understand' (or agree with?), the mentality of Islamic fundamentalists? I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. Can you please clarify it?

As a side not to the above quote; I never claimed that I agree or disagree with the invasion of Iraq in my previous posts or that the end justifies the war in itself.

Ohh come on, You think the Iraqi people are now able to deal with "Iraqi" issues? Why the hell are MORE American forces going in then? Iraq is in DEEP trouble now, and it is President George Bush's and his Neo-Con Administrations Fault. The US did not Kill him, but they pulled and still pull all the strings on the Iraqi government that did.

You are jumping to conclusions again. I've never said that the Iraqis are able to handle the current issues in Iraq - I argued that the US are handing over more and more to the Iraqi security forces, not that they can control Iraq by themselves to a larger extent. The reason that more and more support and supplies are being shipped to Iraq is just that - providing support and supplies.

Iraq may be in "deep trouble" now, but they were in even DEEPER trouble before. Yes, I agree that it is the fault of the President of the United States that Iraq has become a better country to live in. People are no longer being assassinated for their political beliefs, they are no longer living in that much fear as they did before and they are allowed to vote according to what they think. Note that I am not claiming that I support that war in Iraq or claim that the means are justified with the end result - I am only providing a perspective to your statement that Iraq is in "DEEP trouble".

There is no conspiracy. The United States are not pulling the strings and the United States is not the government in Iraq. I have not really seen you providing some evidence that the United States are running Iraq from behind a puppet-like government. Please provide us with that, or else I will consider that argument to be flawed and as a result, invalid.

How will the execution of Saddam Hussein lead to a more segregated society. I hope you are not claiming that 50% of the Iraqi people are terrorists! I am aware that there are conflicts between Shia- and Sunni Muslims, but it hardly applied to everyone but to militant factions.

Contrary to what your patriotic urges tell you, your government is quite capable of very underhand and out right self-centredness to the extend of evildoings to ensure you have the strongest economy in the world. The Saddam trail if held in Den Haag some people would have had egg on their face.

Sorry for being a realist...

I am not from the United States. I'm from Europe. From a country that has a government that does not agree with the actions in Iraq or the execution of Saddam Hussein. Everyone that is for the actions in Iraq, is not necessarily Americans, just like a person living in the Middle East is not necessarily a terrorist. Prejudiced works both ways.

Your post is filled with conspiracy theories such as "The United States only does thing for money". It might be true that they do a lot and have always done a lot no matter who has been president or who the members of the administration had been, but it is a long way from everything. Have you ever heard of financial aid to Third World countries? The reduction in Third World Debt? The financial aid to Indonesia after the tsunami?

I can agree that a trial in Haag would have been better to some extent. Why would it be different to have it in Haag than in Iraq? Would fundamentalists supporters even care? They would probably claimed that it wasn't a fair trail because it was i. too far away ii. not held by the Iraqi people and iii. unfair because of external forces being a part of Iraqi business.

I, however, will not apologize for being a realist.

 

[Anttech]

Your attempts to explain what a martyr is has failed.

It failed, because you stated it as failed? It is a Definition of a martyr! --- To die or suffer for ones principles.

Look try and structure an argument, and don't try strawmen with me please...

Just for clarity for other readers here:
I didnt attempt to push any conspiracy theories on anyone.
I didnt say anything about 50% of Iraqi's being Terrorists.
I didnt say anything about The US only doing things for Money.
I didnt say anything about people from the ME being Terrorists.
I didnt say I agree with Islamist, nor any religious fundamentalists

So you are actually saying that the reason that you are against the execution (and the war on Iraq indirectly) is that you 'understand' (or agree with?), the mentality of Islamic fundamentalists? I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. Can you please clarify it?

Your question was regarding why I am against the war in Iraq, My answer is because I understand the area, and the mentality of the people in Arabia. I knew that it would end up a civil war blood bath due to the racial/tribal hatred between the factions in Iraq. I never said anything about Iraqi's being terrorists, you did. The civil war in Iraq is not being carried out by Islamic Fundamentalists now, it is being carried out by differing tribal factions, whom are trying to kill each other, as they have done for millennium.

I argued that the US are handing over more and more to the Iraqi security forces, not that they can control Iraq by themselves to a larger extent. The reason that more and more support and supplies are being shipped to Iraq is just that - providing support and supplies.

They arent handing anything over to Iraqi's they are sending more Armed Forces. If they were handing power back, The American Forces would be pulling out. They can't because they ultimately know if they do the Civil war will escalate, Iran will dive in, and we have a worse situation that when the Saddam was in power.

How will the execution of Saddam Hussein lead to a more segregated society. I hope you are not claiming that 50% of the Iraqi people are terrorists! I am aware that there are conflicts between Shia- and Sunni Muslims, but it hardly applied to everyone but to militant factions.

Errmmm didnt the dancing around his body by Shia Muslims and screaming hate at him as they were about to hang him, or perhaps the Sunni muslims in Jordan and also in iraq after, screaming revenge, not give that away?

Your post is filled with conspiracy theories such as "The United States only does thing for money". It might be true that they do a lot and have always done a lot no matter who has been president or who the members of the administration had been, but it is a long way from everything. Have you ever heard of financial aid to Third World countries? The reduction in Third World Debt? The financial aid to Indonesia after the tsunami?

Any idea why there is third word debt in the first place? Ever heard of the 'loans' the US gave Europe after ww2? Look any government would have done the same, its called Politics, and selfinterest...

I can agree that a trial in Haag would have been better to some extent. Why would it be different to have it in Haag than in Iraq? Would fundamentalists supporters even care? They would probably claimed that it wasn't a fair trail because it was i. too far away ii. not held by the Iraqi people and iii. unfair because of external forces being a part of Iraqi business.

I could care less about fundamentalist supporters, its the ordinary people I care about. Iraq can barely govern itself, Den Haag is the international court, however this means that Saddam would be able to tell all, and being a state leader for as long as he was, and having been in bed with so many countries of the west he could have told many things that would have made the Oil for pencils scandal nothing in comparison...

 

[Anttech]

Here is some nice quotes from the differing factions, These people arent fundamentalist crazy religious zealots, they are the people who rule Iraq (and other countries).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6218597.stm

Now if you seriously think that the execution of Saddam won't escalate an already very bad situation then explain your reasoning for that stance.

Here is some more quotes from world leaders

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6225689.stm

 

[Moridin]

No, your definition of a martyr failed because you didn't take into account the way he was executed or by whom.

Yes, most of the text in your posts have been conspiracy theories such as.

The REAL reasons why he was executed so quickly are because the Shei and the US Admin had a common interest Saddam deposed of ASAP. Bushco would have HATED to have a real trail, and have even more unsightly political scandal come to the forefront!

The US did not Kill him, but they pulled and still pull all the strings on the Iraqi government that did.

and having been in bed with so many countries of the west he could have told many things that would have made the Oil for pencils scandal nothing in comparison...

The list goes on. The reason I used the term "Conspiracy theories" is because you are bluntly stating a lot of random views without any sources or logic reasoning behind it. I apologize if that wasn't clear.

The 50% was part of a question as to how the execution of Saddam Hussein will lead to more segregation, which you still have not answered. Of course, the real figure is different. It was an easy to follow attempt at asking why the execution would render more segregation between the different directions of Islam. You have only provided circumstantial answers to it. At best. Please explain as to why the execution will lead to more segregation using factual information instead of pointing out that a handful of people were happy that he was dead.

Your conspiracy theories are implying that the United States are doing this the incorrect way, scheming for power and so on. One way is to go after money.

No, you did not specifically said that people in the Middle East are terrorists - that was a rhetorical approach I used to combat your views that may appear to be judgmental and prejudice.

No, you didn't specifically said that you "agree with Islamist, nor any religious fundamentalists", but I interpreted that your views were of that kind and asked for a clarification.

I have not made a strawman, but simple laying out structured arguments with analogies and rhetoric argumentation to defeat your arguments. That is what one does in a debate.

I didn't ask if you were against the war in Iraq, but to clarify your statement that you can "understand the history of the place, I understand the Arab mentality and I understood from day 1 what a mess this would end up as is." That statement suggests some relation to that, hence my request for clarification.

I knew that it would end up a civil war blood bath due to the racial/tribal hatred between the factions in Iraq. I never said anything about Iraqi's being terrorists, you did. The civil war in Iraq is not being carried out by Islamic Fundamentalists now, it is being carried out by differing tribal factions, whom are trying to kill each other, as they have done for millennium.

This is a circular argument that doesn't have any purpose. How can you know that there will be a blood bath due to tribal hatred from the execution of Saddam Hussein, which is the topic of discussion. It is not whether one is for or against the war in Iraq. What suggests that the execution of Saddam Hussein will lead to a "tribal bloodbath"? You cannot repeat the arguments that I have already countered. Get on with the debate and I will as well.

They arent handing anything over to Iraqi's they are sending more Armed Forces. If they were handing power back, The American Forces would be pulling out. They can't because they ultimately know if they do the Civil war will escalate, Iran will dive in, and we have a worse situation that when the Saddam was in power.

This seems to be yet another anti-imperialistic, conspiracy theory. The United States have handed the power over to the Iraqi government a while back. The United states has (and are) giving more and more power to the Iraqi security forces. Just because they are sending support and supplies to the current force there doesn't mean that they are going to take over the power of the country from the Iraqi people and government. This is the final counter argument against your conspiracy theory that the US was the one who executed Saddam.

You are swaying back and forth - one minute it is the US that are holding the strings behind the execution, the other it is racist Iraqis. Make up your mind.

Iran will hardly go in if the United States leaves, since both countries (Iran and Iraq) have been at war for eight years not too long ago. Please provide arguments or some line of though for your unsubstantiated claims.

The civil war in Iraq is not being carried out by Islamic Fundamentalists now, it is being carried out by differing tribal factions, whom are trying to kill each other, as they have done for millennium.

This is hardly relevant. People who go to war based on religion is fundamentalists no matter what. You still have not explained why the execution of Saddam will lead to tribal blood bath. Can you clarify this?

Errmmm didnt the dancing around his body by Shia Muslims and screaming hate at him as they were about to hang him, or perhaps the Sunni muslims in Jordan and also in iraq after, screaming revenge, not give that away?

Also has no relevance. All Sunni Muslims do not seek revenge for the execution. That is prejudice.

I could care less about fundamentalist supporters, its the ordinary people I care about. Iraq can barely govern itself, Den Haag is the international court, however this means that Saddam would be able to tell all, and being a state leader for as long as he was, and having been in bed with so many countries of the west he could have told many things that would have made the Oil for pencils scandal nothing in comparison...

Guess what? That is not how terrorism or fundamentalists work. According to the book My life is a Weapon: A Modern History of Suicide Bombers written by Christoph Reuter, terrorists try to provoke as much retaliation as possible on their own country so that the 'ordinary people' will agree with the terrorists on some level, thus fostering the belief of terrorism. These 'ordinary people' quickly become religious fundamentalists. Saddam was hardly limited in his statements in front of the Iraqi court. He was allowed to protest all he wanted. Imagine how much he had protested at Haag, especially since i. It wasn't held in Iraq ii. was held by non-Iraqis and iii. was held by outsiders in terms of countries.

Again with the conspiracy theories. That Saddam had some secret information about the United States and dealings. There are a lot information about their unscrupulous dealings already, such as anthrax and so on.

Your second link is in fact quotes from mostly editors for newspapers in the middle east and not world leaders.

Here are the question that I want you to answer with structured arguments and referring to sources if required. It written in the above text, but just in case:

Please explain as to why the execution will lead to more segregation and bloodbath using factual information instead of pointing out that a handful of people were happy that he was dead rather than saying that the millions of millions of people in several Middle East countries have the same views (by referring it to "Sunni Muslim thinks" and similar), which can be viewed as prejudice.

 

[Gokul43201]

Iraq may be in "deep trouble" now, but they were in even DEEPER trouble before. Yes, I agree that it is the fault of the President of the United States that Iraq has become a better country to live in. People are no longer being assassinated for their political beliefs, they are no longer living in that much fear as they did before and they are allowed to vote according to what they think.

Are you serious about this bit? You really think the Iraqis share your opinion?

The death rate in Iraq is now about 5 times greater than what it was before the invasion, and most Iraqis polled think they are worse off now. As for the bit about people not being killed for their political beliefs, that may be true. The militias haven't really bothered with conducting political opinion polls before they pump their victims full of lead.

http://www.iraqanalysis.org/info/55

 

[Moridin]

I'd like to take this as an opportunity as to question your source, Gokul43201 one the basis of

i. The website is run by 9 volunteers.
ii. It has no government affiliation, which normally ensures an unbias approach most of the time.
iii. It originates in the United Kingdom, yet content from Iraq, but people who do not appear to have the possibility to collect it in any scientific way.
iv. Have not received any awards or recognitions for their "effort"
v. According to Alexa, they do not get much traffic either.
vi. Most of the content is either circumstantial or without proper citation

 

[edward]

I am only trying to look at things in the proper perspective.

When you said:

and

It implies either that:

1. Iraq received more weapon systems from the USA than from any other country.

or

2. USA supplied more weapon systems to Iraq than to any other country in the region.

No those are your implications.

Now my question is:
Exactly what kind of weapon systems did we provide to Iraq that exceeded those listed in either case?

For the most part we assisted them financially.

Initially, Iraq advanced far into Iranian territory, but was driven back within months. By mid-1982, Iraq was on the defensive against Iranian human-wave attacks. The U.S., having decided that an Iranian victory would not serve its interests, began supporting Iraq: measures already underway to upgrade U.S.-Iraq relations were accelerated, high-level officials exchanged visits, and in February 1982 the State Department removed Iraq from its list of states supporting international terrorism. (It had been included several years earlier because of ties with several Palestinian nationalist groups, not Islamicists sharing the worldview of al-Qaeda. Activism by Iraq's main Shiite Islamicist opposition group, al-Dawa, was a major factor precipitating the war -- stirred by Iran's Islamic revolution, its endeavors included the attempted assassination of Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz.)

Prolonging the war was phenomenally expensive. Iraq received massive external financial support from the Gulf states, and assistance through loan programs from the U.S. The White House and State Department pressured the Export-Import Bank to provide Iraq with financing, to enhance its credit standing and enable it to obtain loans from other international financial institutions. The U.S. Agriculture Department provided taxpayer-guaranteed loans for purchases of American commodities, to the satisfaction of U.S. grain exporters.

The U.S. restored formal relations with Iraq in November 1984, but the U.S. had begun, several years earlier, to provide it with intelligence and military support (in secret and contrary to this country's official neutrality) in accordance with policy directives from President Ronald Reagan. These were prepared pursuant to his March 1982 National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM 4-82) asking for a review of U.S. policy toward the Middle East.

Click on the link and read a bit, or even watch a video.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

 

[edward]

I'd like to take this as an opportunity as to question your source, Gokul43201 one the basis of

i. The website is run by 9 volunteers.
ii. It has no government affiliation, which normally ensures an unbias approach most of the time.
iii. It originates in the United Kingdom, yet content from Iraq, but people who do not appear to have the possibility to collect it in any scientific way.
iv. Have not received any awards or recognitions for their "effort"
v. According to Alexa, they do not get much traffic either.
vi. Most of the content is either circumstantial or without proper citation

Content would have to come from Iraq now then wouldn't it? The following link does not make it appear that Iraqi's are enjoying their new found freedom if they can find a way to escape it.

Until recently the Bush administration had planned to resettle just 500 Iraqis this year, a fraction of the estimated 60,000 to 90,000 Iraqis now fleeing their country each month. State Department officials say they are open to admitting larger numbers, but are limited by a cumbersome and poorly funded U.N. referral system.

And you will find the same stats in just about every publication, or media source you look into.

http://www.starnewsonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070102/NEWS/701020362/1002/rss01
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...dec14,1,7442658.story?coll=la-headlines-world
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec06/refugee_12-28.html

 

[grant9076]

There's a flaw in the argument. It neglects the indigenous capability of the countries in question and it neglects their relative strengths. To make a simplification for the sake of argument, let there be 3 countries in the region (A, B and C), and let their total military capability be represented by the number of missiles they possess. A has 100 missiles, B has 500, and C has 550. Currently C has the largest number and will win any 2-nation conflict, making C the "bully-boy" in the region so long as A and B don't have an alliance. Now, if I sell 200 missiles to A and 100 missiles to B, I've made B the "bully-boy" despite having sold them fewer missiles than another country in the region. Also, the participation of other sellers does not exclude my role, it only includes theirs as well.

Furthermore, no relevance to the context of timeline was considered. The fact that I refuse to sell missiles today doesn't negate the fact that I did sell missiles at a crucial time (some Y years ago), when B and C were engaged in conflict, and I wanted B to win.

Gokul, perhaps I should have clarified my argument. If you look at the period before 1990, you will notice that the Iraqis' American made aircraft were C-130's (cargo), along with Bell Jetranger and UH-1 utility helicopters. None of their fighter or bomber aircraft were American made. In addition, we did not provide them with any surface to surface missiles, air to surface missiles, air to air missiles, or surface to air missiles. Also, their tanks were Russian made. Furthermore, when I listed the equipment that we provided to the other countries, I chose to omit the F-16's to Jordan and the F-18's to Kuwait because these systems were provided after the first Gulf War. Frankly, an unbiased observer looking at the weapons that we sold to any individual neighbor of Iraq (except Syria) compared to what we sold to Iraq would find more physical evidence to support the argument that we were equipping other countries to defend themselves against Iraq (not my personal argument). The truth is that Iraq was well equipped. But it was mostly due to the Russians and the French.

My challenge to turbo to find compelling evidence to the contrary was an attempt to let him discover this for himself.

 

[Gokul43201]

I'd like to take this as an opportunity as to question your source, Gokul43201 one the basis of

i. The website is run by 9 volunteers.
ii. It has no government affiliation, which normally ensures an unbias approach most of the time.
iii. It originates in the United Kingdom, yet content from Iraq, but people who do not appear to have the possibility to collect it in any scientific way.
iv. Have not received any awards or recognitions for their "effort"
v. According to Alexa, they do not get much traffic either.
vi. Most of the content is either circumstantial or without proper citation

What on Earth are you talking about? Did you even look through the page I linked, or did you just start searching for stuff to discredit them with?

FYI, and you'll see this if you visit that link again, all of the content on that page is simply a compilation of polls conducted by well-recognized polling organizations (ICRSS, PIPA, US DoD, UK MoD, Zogby, Oxford Research, etc.).

 

[Anttech]

This is hardly relevant. People who go to war based on religion is fundamentalists no matter what. You still have not explained why the execution of Saddam will lead to tribal blood bath. Can you clarify this?

I already did

Also has no relevance. All Sunni Muslims do not seek revenge for the execution. That is prejudice.

You are really trying to build a stawman around me arent you. I am not a racist, nor do I think Iraqi's are.

Please explain as to why the execution will lead to more segregation and bloodbath using factual information instead of pointing out that a handful of people were happy that he was dead rather than saying that the millions of millions of people in several Middle East countries have the same views (by referring it to "Sunni Muslim thinks" and similar), which can be viewed as prejudice.

I already did, twice, and I don't think it will help to say it again. I already gave links to two bbc websites, that give differing views of worldleaders, many of whom seem to share my thoughts.

for the final time:

The Shia Militia executed Saddam who is a Sunni Bathest. The Sunni's are (FACTUALLY) Now very pissed off, they will and have already started to take revenge for what they see as the murder of a Sunni for who he was, and not what he did.

What facts do you need? Do you want me to show you that most of the killings that are happening in Iraq now are due to Sectarian violence? If you are not willing to see this fact, then I don't know what to say. Did you actually watch the Execution footage?

 

[Moridin]

I already did, twice, and I don't think it will help to say it again. I already gave links to two bbc websites, that give differing views of worldleaders, many of whom seem to share my thoughts.

for the final time:

The Shia Militia executed Saddam who is a Sunni Bathest. The Sunni's are (FACTUALLY) Now very pissed off, they will and have already started to take revenge for what they see as the murder of a Sunni for who he was, and not what he did.

What facts do you need? Do you want me to show you that most of the killings that are happening in Iraq now are due to Sectarian violence? If you are not willing to see this fact, then I don't know what to say. Did you actually watch the Execution footage?

No, your second link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6225689.stm) does NOT give more quotes from world leaders. They are views and opinions expressed by Middle East Reporters, NOT from world leaders. If you are going to cite a source, please do it accurately. As a side not, it wasn't two links to two different BCC websites, they were just two different articles from one website that is maintained by the BBC.

Here is a screen shot of your previous post taken a few moments in case you would edit it later if you have the opportunity and/or idea http://www.filehive.com/files/0105/image.png.

Again, you continue with unsubstantiated, prejudice claims and conspiracy theories. No, Saddam Hussein was not killed by Shia militia, but by the government of Iraq, which was the ones that ultimately tried, convicted and executed Saddam Hussein. He was not executed by the United States nor paramilitary unions.

Yes, I am aware that there are violence between certain limited factions of the different religious wings in Iraq. I have never denied it. Yes, I say the execution of Saddam, both the official video and the short and blurry video filmed by a mobile phone. Yes, I did see photos of his dead body. Yes, I did see and I do people that some people where happy that Saddam Hussein has been executed.

You are being prejudice when you claim that ALL Sunni Muslims (as a group of people) are very bloodthirsty and only want revenge. I am convinced that this is the fact for some people, or even a lot, but hardly the majority or everyone. If this is the truth, I wish to see some direct evidence that a majority of the Sunni Muslims only want revenge and bloodshed. In itself, it is a highly offensive statement against Sunni Muslims, especially secularized ones.

As a said earlier, prejudice and anger goes both ways. Saddam had been a dictator for 27 long and horrific years and suppressed a lot of people. He was a Sunni Muslim and the Shia Muslims are in a clear majority of the country's population according to the https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/iz.html. It comes as no surprise that some Sunni Muslims are angered over the arrest, trial, sentence and execution.

Saying that all Sunni Muslims are vicious and angry revenge-seekers that will cause a bloodbath is like calling all the people that live in the Middle East terrorists or saying that all the people living in the United States are pro-Bush and pro-war. Neither of these three statements are true. You have explained or clarified nothing at all.

So I ask you again, please present evidence or rational, logical explanations without the use of conspiracy theories as to why the execution of Saddam enrages ALL Sunni Muslims and will lead to an all out tribal war and bloodbath.

 

[Anttech]

You are being prejudice when you claim that ALL Sunni Muslims (as a group of people) are very bloodthirsty and only want revenge.

I never said ALL Sunni's. Nor did I say:

all Sunni Muslims are vicious and angry revenge-seekers that will cause a bloodbath is like calling all the people that live in the Middle East terrorists or saying that all the people living in the United States are pro-Bush and pro-war

You seem to keep saying this not me.

I said:

The Shia Militia executed Saddam who is a Sunni Bathest. The Sunni's are (FACTUALLY) Now very pissed off, they will and have already started to take revenge for what they see as the murder of a Sunni for who he was, and not what he did.

Like to point out where I said the blood thirsty part? Or the part where I am being racist?

Look whoever you are, I really don't care if you disagree with me, or you want to debate with me, this is fine, I get in quit a few here, however there are several rules u need to follow if you want to continue posting here. 1 is not building strawmen, Stop attempting to position me as a racist, your whole argument is based around this... So you can stop this accusations: I AM NOT A RACIST. I believe in Racial and Religious equality, if you don't believe me u only have to seach through the many posts I have posted here to see this. I hope this is the end of your strawman building.Anyway to reiterate, so we can move on from the racist accusations:

I believe that the execution of saddam was handled extreemly badly, like a lynching and I believe as a POINT OF FACT that the violence will now escalate due to the fact that sunni Muslims are now pissed off at what happened. I believe this fact to also be known by the US admin, and this is why more troops are being send in. I also no don't subscribe to your fantasy that Iraq is now a better place since the war, considering the death toll now. And finally I don't believe nor do I subscribe to consiperacy theories, like the attack on 911 was by bushes cronies. I however don't take, seemingly opposite to you, what Bush or other politicians tell the media at face value. One should look at all the facts of what is actually happening and make his own mind up.

Now if you want to debate about whether Saddams death is a good thing then fine, lets, but stop your strawman building.

 

[Moridin]

Yes, you did claim this to ALL Sunni's by speaking of them as a group with only one wish and action in several of your posts. Here is an example.

"The Shia Militia executed Saddam who is a Sunni Bathest. The Sunni's are (FACTUALLY) Now very pissed off, they will and have already started to take revenge for what they see as the murder of a Sunni for who he was, and not what he did."

I knew that it would end up a civil war blood bath due to the racial/tribal hatred between the factions in Iraq.

Here is it, black on white, that your opinion is that ALL Sunni Muslims are "pissed off" and wants to "take revenge" in a "tribal bloodbath". Those are EXACT quotes from your above and previous posts. Do not attempt to deny it one more time, because we can clearly see that this is the case.

I used the last two sentences in following quote as rhetorics to prove your arguments wrong, not to claim that you said it. The first sentence you have said, as proven above.

all Sunni Muslims are vicious and angry revenge-seekers that will cause a bloodbath is like calling all the people that live in the Middle East terrorists or saying that all the people living in the United States are pro-Bush and pro-war

I have never claimed that you are a racist, nor would I ever to that as personal attacks are a bad way or making an argument. I said that your view and opinions tend to be prejudice, as you cannot possibly claim that ALL Sunni Muslims (which are almost a billion people according to some sources such as http://www.religionfacts.com/islam/comparison_charts/islamic_sects.htm one). Using terms such as "The Sunni Muslims want" or "The Sunni Muslims are" can as a result be considered highly prejudice statements. You cannot possibly speak for close to a billion people, many of which are secularized to some extent. I'd like to reiterate that I have never called or insinuated that you are a racists, only that your claims can be viewed as highly prejudice.

I believe that the execution of saddam was handled extreemly badly, like a lynching and I believe as a POINT OF FACT that the violence will now escalate due to the fact that sunni Muslims are now pissed off at what happened. I believe this fact to also be known by the US admin, and this is why more troops are being send in

Yes, you have stated that you believe that the execution was wrong under these particular circumstances. The only thing that I am questioning is why the execution of Saddam and the way it was carried out would lead to greater civil war and a bloodbath between religious and racial factions, as you have clearly stated that it will. You are again claiming that you represent close to a billion people by saying that "the Sunni Muslims are now pissed off".

The United States are sending in more supplies and support due to the fact that there is too little support and supplies in Iraq for the coalition army. It may also be to send in more troops just to be on the safe side. That really has no relevance, since just because the United States sends in more support and supplies doesn't mean that all the Sunni Muslims will try to seek revenge against the execution of Saddam Hussein. There is a difference between something that will actually happen and (more or less) substantiated predictions saying that it might happen.

And finally I don't believe nor do I subscribe to consiperacy theories, like the attack on 911 was by bushes cronies.

You are arguing against your own statements. You have time and time again posted conspiracy theories such as:

The REAL reasons why he was executed so quickly are because the Shei and the US Admin had a common interest Saddam deposed of ASAP. Bushco would have HATED to have a real trail, and have even more unsightly political scandal come to the forefront!

The US did not Kill him, but they pulled and still pull all the strings on the Iraqi government that did.

and having been in bed with so many countries of the west he could have told many things that would have made the Oil for pencils scandal nothing in comparison...

These are unsubstantiated claims made by your very self, without referring to one SINGLE source. These are the conspiracy theories that you have been arguing for. They are exact quotes from your previous posts. You say that you have not used conspiracy theories as arguments? Prove it.

I am not accusing you of being prejudice and using unsupported conspiracy theories as facts for the sake of it - I have nothing personal against you or your views and opinions - I am using it to disprove your faulty arguments.

Since you have not stated one single source of information to support your conspiracy theories and unsubstantiated claims, I will ask for a third time:

So I ask you again, please present evidence or rational, logical explanations without the use of conspiracy theories as to why the execution of Saddam enrages ALL Sunni Muslims and will lead to an all out tribal war and bloodbath. This time without being prejudice or resorting to conspiracy theories. Please.

You asked me to debate if the execution of Saddam was a good or bad thing? That is what I am doing. You are using the argument that the above will happen and I am questioning it with the arguments in this and previous posts which you have yet to counter. Please.