Stop Saddam's Execution??

[Bob Hubbard]

What blows my mind is that some people seem to find it reasonable to equate American Presidents with Saddam Hussein, and other genocidal maniac's. That is about as morally responsible as me equating Dalton McGuinty of Ontario with Stalin because of his support of socialist policies. The comparison is niether fair nor fitting.

Look, I'm no Bush sympathizer, but if you can't realistically seperate his policies of which you may disagree with atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein then I am afraid that your beyond the reaches of having a logical discussion. If you can seperate the two, but are just refusing to do so to make a point, then your not being responsible or fair in this discussion.

Either way, we can conclude that when such generalizations are thrown around, that the discussion has officially gone into the gutter.

So I think that is my cue to walk away from this one. For better or for worse, I have stated my opinions, and I think I am done. The rest of you can hash this thing out.

Have fun...

Paul,
An American President oversaw the Trail of Tears, Wounded Knee, and the destruction of tens of thousands of Native lives and families and cultures, genocide if you will.
An American President oversaw the non-criminal imprisionment of thousands of US citizens due to their ethnic background.
An American President led this nation into an illegal war on false pretenses and disinformation, has overseen the imprisonment without charge of several thousand individuals, numerous of whom have been unlawfully tortured in secret prisons around the world.

So, yes I do see reasonable comparisons to another now dead madman who maintained secret prisons, secret police and other crimes. The difference is, one of these lunatics is now dead, and being laughed at as he dies on a deplorable video clip. The other pardoned himself last fall.

 

[Cryozombie]

This is slightly off topic, But I am trying to gain an understanding to a mindset...

Bob, If you knew the only way to stop me from coming and killing you or your family was to take a hit out on me,

Would you have me killed? Or would you allow me to kill your family and yourself?

I'm not equating this to Killing Sadam after the fact, and using it as "revenge" or "justice"... Im just asking it in the context of my question.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

This is slightly off topic, But I am trying to gain an understanding to a mindset...

Bob, If you knew the only way to stop me from coming and killing you or your family was to take a hit out on me,

Would you have me killed? Or would you allow me to kill your family and yourself?

I'm not equating this to Killing Sadam after the fact, and using it as "revenge" or "justice"... Im just asking it in the context of my question.

In the situation given, I would have to kill you.
It's still wrong. But it is self defense.
If you killed my family, and I ran into you 10 years later, it would not be self defense. It would be revenge. It would be murder.
And still wrong.
It would not correct the earlier murder of my family, nor make me "feel all better".

 

[Don Roley]

No, but 2 wrights make an airplane.

Someone answer these:
Has the execution of any leader ever served as a deterent against abuses by others? Please, I want to see proof...maybe an interview or something to back this idea up.

I think the problem with that idea is that you would not get any of these guys to answer such an interview honestly. How many of them would admit they were too scared to do anything after all they have done to build up their image?

Also, how many times have we really been able to cause them to fear? Pol Pot, Pinoche, Stalin, etc all died of old age. Recently there has been a move to hold dictators accountable for their actions with the move to try Pinchet and such. It has not had much success so far, but I for one would like to see the move continued instead of throwing up our hands and giving up.

It boggles my mind that we can take someone who killed someone else and send him to prison for the rest of his life. But if you were responsible for the deaths of thousands of people, you spend your days in some fancy villa for the rest of your days like Idi Amin did.

And I have to echo Tulisan's comments. Hussein had someone try to kill him. So he killed the people of that guy's village. Some 2 year old girl (among others) died in fear and pain and Hussein could have stopped it. Hussein desired and arranged it. That child did not die as part of a bomb strike that she got caught in. She was not collateral damage that we try to avoid whenever we can. Hussein knew and targetted her for something she had no part in and for which she could easily have been let free on. Just a simple order, or a lack of an order on Hussein's part and she would be alive today. Instead, she died crying in fear and pain.

Is it petty to desire the death of someone that is that evil? Maybe- but it works for me. And unless we take every person from Hussein's village and kill them I fail to see how we can be accused of being as bad as he.

 

[jdinca]

On that I would disagree with you.

What where the reasons?

Supporting terrorists? Iraq was the most secular country in the region, and as a result did not get along with Al'Quida at all. They where ideological enemies within there own region.

Weapons of Mass distruction? Nope, nothing there...

I view morality as more a question of intent and reasons rather then the end result. Suppose someone back in the 30's mugged and killed Hitler with no knowledge of who he was or what he would do, would that person have been a hero or a murderer?

They did everyone a favour (ignoring the fact that someone else probably would have filled Hitlers role), yet there intent was criminal. Steal his money and kill him. I'd say they commited a immoral act.

Sudam being overthrown may have been a good thing (again ignoring some facts, namely that Iraq is in far worse shape now) but where the reasons for overthrowing him morally right?

Remeber that the actions he was convicted for where well known and happened before the US had a friendly relationship with him, and where not the reasons given for the invasion before it happened.

And if we look at "stupid mistakes" and number of civillian lives lost from them, the US has FAR out killed Sudam's regime. Even in more recent years. The US is the only country to have used Nuclear weapons on people, it's economic sanctions against various countries have killed millions, the cold war with the USSR chopped up the world leading to many proxy wars, Vietnam being probably the biggest.

Yet no one came and toppled the US governemt and executed its presidents. Why are Sudam's mistakes unforgiveable? What has he done in recent years to warrant being invaded?

Supporting terrorists: No, he didn't get along with Al Qaida, even though Ansar al Islam had a terrorist camp in his country. Not to mention his payments to the families of Palestinian homocide bombers. I would call that support of terrorism. Oh, and Zarqawi was in Baghdad for medical treatment. Do you honestly think a person of that notoriety would be in Baghdad without Saddam's tacit approval?

Weapons of Mass Destruction: Our intelligence sucked, Britain's sucked, so did France, Germany's, Russia's, take your pick. Israel was spot on, telling us that the weapons weren't there and what had been there had been moved to Syria some time earlier. Unfortunately, we'll never be able to verify that last one. Everyone agreed that he had the weapons, he was that good at pulling off the sham. Had he not played the shell game with the UN, he could very well still be in power. What was well documented was that he had the facilities in place to pick up where he left off as soon as the sanctions were lifted.

BTW, thumbing his nose at 14 UN resolutions seems to be consistently ignored in this debate.

I do think trying to tie Iraq to 9/11 was the wrong thing to do.

I agree with your Hitler analogy. That would have been an immoral act. I don't think that overthrowing Saddam was though. I just wish that when he was a teenage assassin in Tikrit, that one of his jobs had gone wrong and he had been on the wrong end of the knife instead of his intended victim.

I'm not saying it was right, or wrong, but it's been estimated that dropping the bombs on Japan saved up to 2 million lives, even though it cost a couple of hundred thousand. Would we have been morally better off if we had not done that and allowed 10 times that many to die?

I'm a little amazed that you seem to be saying that we started the cold war. I'm not even sure how to respond to that one.

As for sanctions, was it the sanctions, or was it what the leaders of those countries did with the aid they did get that caused the people to suffer? Do we need to replay the Oil for Food Scandal to support that one? How about Kim Jong Il? Take your pick of despotic leaders and what they did with the humanitarian aid that there countries were given despite the sanctions.

Yes, we've made mistakes but we've also done a great deal of good in the world to balance it out. There is no larger donor of humanitarian aid in the world. There is no one else that responds to large scale disasters with more resources than we do. Saddam sent money to the families of dead terrorists.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I think the problem with that idea is that you would not get any of these guys to answer such an interview honestly. How many of them would admit they were too scared to do anything after all they have done to build up their image?

Also, how many times have we really been able to cause them to fear? Pol Pot, Pinoche, Stalin, etc all died of old age. Recently there has been a move to hold dictators accountable for their actions with the move to try Pinchet and such. It has not had much success so far, but I for one would like to see the move continued instead of throwing up our hands and giving up.

It boggles my mind that we can take someone who killed someone else and send him to prison for the rest of his life. But if you were responsible for the deaths of thousands of people, you spend your days in some fancy villa for the rest of your days like Idi Amin did.

And I have to echo Tulisan's comments. Hussein had someone try to kill him. So he killed the people of that guy's village. Some 2 year old girl (among others) died in fear and pain and Hussein could have stopped it. Hussein desired and arranged it. That child did not die as part of a bomb strike that she got caught in. She was not collateral damage that we try to avoid whenever we can. Hussein knew and targetted her for something she had no part in and for which she could easily have been let free on. Just a simple order, or a lack of an order on Hussein's part and she would be alive today. Instead, she died crying in fear and pain.

Is it petty to desire the death of someone that is that evil? Maybe- but it works for me. And unless we take every person from Hussein's village and kill them I fail to see how we can be accused of being as bad as he.

And some might say that it's petty to start a war on false intelligence while ignoring ones true enemies all because someone insulted or tried to kill your daddy. Or to take joy at anothers suffering, or death, while claiming to hold dear the tenants of one of the worlds major religions.

Let me put this another way.
Anyone have a problem with turning George and Dick over to the same court for war crimes trials? After all, it was a fair and just trial.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Yes, we've made mistakes but we've also done a great deal of good in the world to balance it out. There is no larger donor of humanitarian aid in the world. There is no one else that responds to large scale disasters with more resources than we do. Saddam sent money to the families of dead terrorists.

One persons terrorists are another persons freedom fighters. Remember, who gets to define it is usually whoever won. There are many nations in the world that looks at the US as a terrorist nation. That is despite the humanitarian heart at the core of this nation.

 

[Don Roley]

And some might say that it's petty to start a war on false intelligence while ignoring ones true enemies all because someone insulted or tried to kill your daddy.

That is not the case. And it is off topic. This thread is not titled, "lets bash Bush yet again." How about we discuss Hussein and his death?

 

[Don Roley]

One persons terrorists are another persons freedom fighters.

And some child molesters are considered advocates for freedom by certain people.

Just because someone chooses to not see the obvious, does not mean that we can't make the right choice.

Terrorists are people that see a bus full of kids and think of them as a target. Militants are people that will not knowingly shoot at the bus, but will take shots at soldiers.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Its on topic, because if the US hadn't invaded Iraq, while ignoring Osama bin Laden, on flawed intelegence and because someone wanted to avenge "his daddy", then Saddam would not have been ousted from power and would not have gone through a show trial and disgraceful execution.

A coup may have toppled him. But that is a different beast.

But, rather than his death, lets look at what most likely would be if he had been allowed to live:
Without the US invasion, the most probable reality is one where Saddam and his even more evil sons were still alive, still in power and still thumbing their noses at the US.
3,200+ US and allied troops would still be alive, and 46,000 more still physically and mentally intact.
Over 100,000 Iraqi civilians would still be alive.
The infrastructure of Iraq would still be reasonably intact.
Crime in the nation would be low, not at all time highs.
Priceless historical relics would still be intact and in place.

So, tell me. How has the show trial, and disgusting execution of Saddam changed things? Improved things?

Or has his death now made him a martyr around whom a new generation of terrorists will gather in a country in the midsts of the opening moves in a civil war?

 

[Jonathan Randall]

Personally, I think his victim's had a right to his execution. Still, it does look bad having the U.S. do it - particularly given the fact that we waged aggressive war to do so. I think a Mussollini or Ceaucescu sort of end for Saddam would have been more fitting. That being said, the survivors of his victims deserved the justice that his execution, albeit in a minor way, meted out.

 

[heretic888]

You're saying that the taking of a life is inherently wrong.

I actually never said anything of the sort.

My position is that the avoidable killing of a defenseless human being --- regardless of who he or she is --- is immoral. That is a far cry from self-defense or the protection of one's loved ones. While I hesitate to say the parent's actions were "moral" in the situation you described, I would agree they are necessary.

Actually, I would point you to Bob's own posts on this thread. He put forward arguments and positions that are virtually in complete agreement with my own views.

Laterz.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

And some child molesters are considered advocates for freedom by certain people.

Well, I believe you and I are not numbered among those 'people'.

Just because someone chooses to not see the obvious, does not mean that we can't make the right choice.

But who is to say it is really right? Hitler and his people thought their 'final solution' was the right choice. The Ohio National Guard in 1970 thought opening fire on collage kids was the right choice. Hell, George Custer thought leaving his Gattling Guns behind was the right choice. Obviously, these 3 separate 'right choices' are anything but. History will tell us in the end if any of this was truly "right"

Terrorists are people that see a bus full of kids and think of them as a target. Militants are people that will not knowingly shoot at the bus, but will take shots at soldiers.

Terrorists are those who rule by terror.
Wiki:
"
Terrorism is a term used to describe violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against those considered innocents by groups or persons for political, nationalist, or religious goals. As a type of unconventional warfare, terrorism means to weaken or supplant existing political landscapes through capitulation, acquiescence, or radicalization, as opposed to subversion or direct military action.
"Terrorist attacks" usually are characterized as "indiscriminate", the "targeting of civilians", or as executed "with disregard for human life". The term "terrorism" often is used to assert that the enemy's political violence is immoral, wanton, and unjustified. Per the most common definition of terrorism — typically used by states, academics, counter-terrorism experts, and civil, non-governmental organizations —, "terrorists" are actors who do not belong to any recognized armed forces or who don't abide the laws of war, and who, therefore, are regarded as "rogue actors".
Those labelled "terrorists" rarely identify themselves so and, instead, typically use terms referring to their ideological or ethnic struggle, such as: separatist, freedom fighter, liberator, revolutionary, vigilante, militant, paramilitary, guerrilla, rebel, jihadi or mujaheddin, or fedayeen, or any similar-meaning word in other languages.
Terrorism has been used by a broad array of political organizations in furthering their objectives; both right-wing and left-wing political parties, nationalistic, and religious groups, revolutionaries and ruling governments.[1]
Some persons and governments believe that the term "Terrorism", as defined in dictionaries, now has a negative connotation, under the theory that a person who attacks the civilian population is, instead, a militant, regardless of the status of the victims of terrorism."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism

 

[Cryozombie]

In the situation given, I would have to kill you.
It's still wrong. But it is self defense.
If you killed my family, and I ran into you 10 years later, it would not be self defense. It would be revenge. It would be murder.
And still wrong.
It would not correct the earlier murder of my family, nor make me "feel all better".

Ok, I get you now. You arent against killing when it needs to be done, but you are against it when it doesnt serve any real purpose. Makes sense to me.

 

[FearlessFreep]

A Sad Addition to the story



Boy hangs himself 'like Saddam'

Boy hangs himself 'like Saddam'
01/01/2007 22:43 - (SA)

Multan - A young boy who tried to copy hanging scenes from the execution video of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein died in central Pakistan, said police on Monday.

Mubashar Ali, 9, hanged himself, while re-enacting Hussein's hanging with the help of elder sister, 10, after tying a rope to a ceiling fan and his neck in his home in Rahim Yar Khan district on Sunday, said a local police official.

The father of the deceased boy said that his children had been watching the video of Saddam Hussein's execution on television and attempted to imitate the hanging as other family members thought they were playing in another room.

"My wife and sister rushed to rescue Mubashar when children cried for help from the adjoining room, but he died due to hanging," said Alamgir Paracha, father of Mubashar.

Police said that the death was accidental and a case of parental negligence.
...

more at the link

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Ok, I get you now. You arent against killing when it needs to be done, but you are against it when it doesnt serve any real purpose. Makes sense to me.

Exactly.

 

[jdinca]

One persons terrorists are another persons freedom fighters. Remember, who gets to define it is usually whoever won. There are many nations in the world that looks at the US as a terrorist nation. That is despite the humanitarian heart at the core of this nation.

So you're saying it's perfectly okay from your point of view to call someone who walks into a crowded cafe, or an open market full of civilians and blows himself and as many of them as he possibly can to bits a freedom fighter? Seriously? Regardless of who gets to define it, I don't see how anyone with basic human decency could take that stance. Yeah, we kill civilians during military action but we go out of our way to minimize it, otherwise, we would have just carpet bombed Baghdad instead of using targeted munitions. A terrorist targets the innocent. Hardly what I would call a freedom fighter. I do understand your point, I just choose to disagree with it.

Those nations that consider us a terrorist nation sure seem to change their tune when a disaster hits and the US shows up on the scene, i.e. the earthquake in Pakistan. These nations take our help with one hand and want to kill us with the other. Who has the moral high ground here? And if we're such a bad country, why are there so many people that want to come here?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

So you're saying it's perfectly okay from your point of view to call someone who walks into a crowded cafe, or an open market full of civilians and blows himself and as many of them as he possibly can to bits a freedom fighter? Seriously?

No. I didn't say that at all. Please reread what I did say.

Regardless of who gets to define it, I don't see how anyone with basic human decency could take that stance.

Me either. But those who engage in such actions care little for things like human decency.

Yeah, we kill civilians during military action but we go out of our way to minimize it, otherwise, we would have just carpet bombed Baghdad instead of using targeted munitions. A terrorist targets the innocent. Hardly what I would call a freedom fighter.

The term is all semantics. They are the same, it just depends on which side you're on.

It was expressed once in a britcom:

Darling: So you see, Blackadder, Field Marshal Haig is most anxious to
eliminate all these German spies.

Melchett: Filthy Hun weasels fighting their dirty underhand war!

Darling: And, fortunately, one of *our* spies--

Melchett: Splendid fellows, brave heroes, risking life and limb for Blighty!

I do understand your point, I just choose to disagree with it.

I'm sorry, but I don't think you did understand my point, as expressed by you. What you seem to have heard from me was not what I intended to say. Your end conclusion however I do agree with, that being the point expressed was off.

Those nations that consider us a terrorist nation sure seem to change their tune when a disaster hits and the US shows up on the scene, i.e. the earthquake in Pakistan. These nations take our help with one hand and want to kill us with the other. Who has the moral high ground here? And if we're such a bad country, why are there so many people that want to come here?

During numerous conflicts, short periods of peace have broken out, so that both sides can collect their dead and wounded. Troops on both sides would render aid to their enemy, often showing great acts of kindness to men that a little while ago they had been trying to kill. Sadly, eventually hostilities resume and the killing continues. Politics is the same. City is flattened, aid comes in, hearts pour out, then eventually politics resumes and the hatred returns.

“Savage peoples are ruled by passion, civilized peoples by the mind. The difference lies not in the respective natures of savagery and civilization, but in their attendant circumstances, institutions, and so forth. The difference, therefore, does not operate in every sense, but it does in most of them. Even the most civilized peoples, in short, can be fired with passionate hatred for each other.”

Karl von Clausewitz

Put another way, man will not be truly civilized until the day that he can proclaim "I will not kill", and hold himself to it. As a race, not just an individual.

How does this relate to Saddam?

“No civilized society can thrive upon victims, whose humanity has been permanently mutilated.”

Rabindranath Tagore

Saddam was killed to appease his victims. But his death will not appease them for long. Nor return them to life, nor their property or health. All it will do is create armed uprisings seeking to extend the violence, revenge him, and continue the cycle of violence that started before his birth.


http://thinkexist.com/quotes/rabindranath_tagore/

 

[Hand Sword]

With respect ot everyones opinions, the deed has been done, he has been burried. Our troops are still there, and maybe more on the way, Bottom line....What are we to do now? (seriously)

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Prepare for the coming rise in hostilities, the 'fanatic' supporters and the revenge seekers, and seek to minimize our casualties as we ride out this wave, as the current commander in chief will consider no options other than to continue doing what has already been done.