... after a fair trial
Not so - how is the "trial" of Saddam Hussein *fair* ... ?
That Saddam's execution is "victory of good over evil" I also question ...
Seems to me evil is at work behind his execution, and continues now without Saddam in this world.
... so, yes - I agree "it is the victory of the greater evil over a lesser evil" - I agree.
Words of "President George W. Bush" are not his words at all.
Saddam's execution is one HUGE MISTAKE.
Whether there was anything "admirable" about the man, Saddam Hussein, nonetheless he was a man - a human being complete with all the frailties of being human.
What he would have done on his own, without encouragement from the troublemakers of this world who wield more power than Saddam could even imagine for his own - we will never know ...
... nor will we ever know the "truths" he could and might have told, had he lived longer - had anyone cared to listen to him.
I would like to have heard what he had to say, and hope it is possible that something of his personal thoughts will survive.
Whether "inhabitants of this planet, in general, will eventually benefit from democracy" depends on what you and I do today - whether anyone will survive to benefit even from being on this planet ... and even those efforts are no guarantee, since if the Creator so chooses, life on this planet winks out, with a possible exception of microbial life remaining in a "warm zone" between inner and outer "furnaces" where no life exists, until some point millions of years from now when some new forms evolve.
That "we still have to get on and stabilise the balance between Sunnis and Shias" I see as wishful thinking.
As if that can be accomplished by intervention ? ... by force: "Get along with each other or else" ... ?
I think there is plenty of room still for things to get worse; sincerely I hope not, but only until things are as bad as they can get will there be a time when "things can only get better" ... for as long as there are those who meddle in the affairs of others, who seek to control others, "things" will not get better.
I find nothing strange in there being compassion for anyone - no matter how "evil" ... but in this particular case, what I do find strange is a notion that "Saddam's evil" is somehow *more evil* than the evils committed by THOSE who sell weapons for profit; who design and sell landmines which ultimately cripple and kill children who have never warred against anyone; who manipulate leaders of nations to commit acts those "leaders" might not be brave enough to attempt without thinking they have "allies" who will support them; who pose as allies to possibly unstable "leaders" so as to compel those individuals to act in ways which create more profit for the posers, and I could go on ...
However "power hungry and arrogant" Saddam may have been, he was fed and enhanced by promises made to him by the United States and its agencies and representatives.
Saddam was no more "absolutely evil" in my view than men who intentionally starve whole populations so they can control the natural resources of such nations unopposed; men who set religious factions against each other send in their own mercenaries to ensure religious wars; men who lable popularly elected leaders as "communist" and convince their own people those leaders are "enemy" and proceed to depose them by invading those sovereign nations, and this list too goes on ...
Is it truly more evil to "mercilessly slaughter one's own people" or is it more evil to mercilessly slaughter, or cause to be slaughtered mercilessly, or facilitate the merciless slaughter of peoples who are not your own ? ... and before you answer that, if you are American, I remind you to think about where your tax dollars go.
Were we to apply the same criteria to everyone for which Saddam was found "guilty" and was therefore executed, then we could spend the entire year of 2007 executing a dozen such *living criminals* each day and by 2008 still not be done with the task.
"If you live by the sword you will die by the sword" applies to all of us who must eventually, one way or another fall, so that setting ourselves as equal to god or jury or executioner makes our fall that much harder when it comes.
Iraq truly needs strong leadership, and that will come from Iraq itself - not from invaders, not from a puppet government imposed on Iraq for purposes of enhancing profits by those who have the power to invade sovereign nations for whatever reason they choose to manufacture.
Whatever the topic of discussion, there will be someone who say, at least in essence:
"I wouldn't believe that even if it was true."
... and if you have never been in war, you might not know; if your "experience" of war is what you read in the papers or what you see on TV, you might not know - you might actually believe that "Iraqis seem to be content with allowing innocent people to be blown up daily" and you might not know that in any such environment of chaos there are many players working at cross purposes.
You might not know that agents of other governments are at work within the war zone to make it look as though Iraqis are killing Iraqis.
To understand how that works, and that it is in fact happening, you have to do your own research, because NO ONE else can convince you.
When you forget that ordinary Iraqis are ordinary human beings with much the same needs and desires as your own, then you are exposed and vulnerable to lies.
If you truly believe that Iraqis are "emasculated" then you have not listened to the voices of the people themselves, who bravely attempt each day to do the simple things that you, yourself, attempt to do less than bravely because you do those things outside a war zone.
Since you still have at least an illusion of Freedom of Speech and because you have 911 at your fingertips, you might assume that an Iraqi mother who does not yell out when she sees "roadside bombs being placed" might have a motive other than wanting to see her children live another day.
Saying "They want America out of their country but will do nothing that will allow us to leave" seems to me to overlook the fact that invading Iraq, which did not attack the United States, or the United States of America, WAS AND IS an illegal act; overlooks the FACT that "America" can leave Iraq any time it wants to regardless of any "allowance" from Iraqis ... and it leaves me wondering what such a person would do if his or her town or city were suddenly bombed, how he or she would react to having foreign tanks in his or her neighbourhood and foreign artillery shelling the area, how he or she would "comply" when foreign troops kick in his or her door and ransack the house ... makes me wonder at such thinking.
In a thread about Saddam's execution, when I read:
"If they can not or will not choose to collectively cooperate and become a friendly nation, then they have by default chosen to become isolationists. And should be treated as such in every sense of the word."
... I can assume that must be in reference to Iraq - to the Iraqi people, and I wonder with whom should they be cooperating ? How DO Iraqis not comprise a "friendly nation" - is that on the basis of resisting an illegal invasion of their country ? Iraqis are "isolationists" if they do not comply with foreign invaders ? Excuse me ?
Through what magic has the entire population of Iraq suddenly taken on such wholesale sins ?
If there is something that Iraqis en masse are truly guilty of, if there is some moral dilemma which needs solved in Iraq, then why are not the U.S. military forces *in possession* of at least a dozen other sovereign territories right now ?
Yes - maybe the U.S. should invade the Sudan ...
It has the power, if only for a little while yet.
.
That Saddam's execution is "victory of good over evil" I also question ...
Seems to me evil is at work behind his execution, and continues now without Saddam in this world.
... so, yes - I agree "it is the victory of the greater evil over a lesser evil" - I agree.
Words of "President George W. Bush" are not his words at all.
Saddam's execution is one HUGE MISTAKE.
Whether there was anything "admirable" about the man, Saddam Hussein, nonetheless he was a man - a human being complete with all the frailties of being human.
What he would have done on his own, without encouragement from the troublemakers of this world who wield more power than Saddam could even imagine for his own - we will never know ...
... nor will we ever know the "truths" he could and might have told, had he lived longer - had anyone cared to listen to him.
I would like to have heard what he had to say, and hope it is possible that something of his personal thoughts will survive.
Whether "inhabitants of this planet, in general, will eventually benefit from democracy" depends on what you and I do today - whether anyone will survive to benefit even from being on this planet ... and even those efforts are no guarantee, since if the Creator so chooses, life on this planet winks out, with a possible exception of microbial life remaining in a "warm zone" between inner and outer "furnaces" where no life exists, until some point millions of years from now when some new forms evolve.
That "we still have to get on and stabilise the balance between Sunnis and Shias" I see as wishful thinking.
As if that can be accomplished by intervention ? ... by force: "Get along with each other or else" ... ?
I think there is plenty of room still for things to get worse; sincerely I hope not, but only until things are as bad as they can get will there be a time when "things can only get better" ... for as long as there are those who meddle in the affairs of others, who seek to control others, "things" will not get better.
I find nothing strange in there being compassion for anyone - no matter how "evil" ... but in this particular case, what I do find strange is a notion that "Saddam's evil" is somehow *more evil* than the evils committed by THOSE who sell weapons for profit; who design and sell landmines which ultimately cripple and kill children who have never warred against anyone; who manipulate leaders of nations to commit acts those "leaders" might not be brave enough to attempt without thinking they have "allies" who will support them; who pose as allies to possibly unstable "leaders" so as to compel those individuals to act in ways which create more profit for the posers, and I could go on ...
However "power hungry and arrogant" Saddam may have been, he was fed and enhanced by promises made to him by the United States and its agencies and representatives.
Saddam was no more "absolutely evil" in my view than men who intentionally starve whole populations so they can control the natural resources of such nations unopposed; men who set religious factions against each other send in their own mercenaries to ensure religious wars; men who lable popularly elected leaders as "communist" and convince their own people those leaders are "enemy" and proceed to depose them by invading those sovereign nations, and this list too goes on ...
Is it truly more evil to "mercilessly slaughter one's own people" or is it more evil to mercilessly slaughter, or cause to be slaughtered mercilessly, or facilitate the merciless slaughter of peoples who are not your own ? ... and before you answer that, if you are American, I remind you to think about where your tax dollars go.
Were we to apply the same criteria to everyone for which Saddam was found "guilty" and was therefore executed, then we could spend the entire year of 2007 executing a dozen such *living criminals* each day and by 2008 still not be done with the task.
"If you live by the sword you will die by the sword" applies to all of us who must eventually, one way or another fall, so that setting ourselves as equal to god or jury or executioner makes our fall that much harder when it comes.
Iraq truly needs strong leadership, and that will come from Iraq itself - not from invaders, not from a puppet government imposed on Iraq for purposes of enhancing profits by those who have the power to invade sovereign nations for whatever reason they choose to manufacture.
Whatever the topic of discussion, there will be someone who say, at least in essence:
"I wouldn't believe that even if it was true."
... and if you have never been in war, you might not know; if your "experience" of war is what you read in the papers or what you see on TV, you might not know - you might actually believe that "Iraqis seem to be content with allowing innocent people to be blown up daily" and you might not know that in any such environment of chaos there are many players working at cross purposes.
You might not know that agents of other governments are at work within the war zone to make it look as though Iraqis are killing Iraqis.
To understand how that works, and that it is in fact happening, you have to do your own research, because NO ONE else can convince you.
When you forget that ordinary Iraqis are ordinary human beings with much the same needs and desires as your own, then you are exposed and vulnerable to lies.
If you truly believe that Iraqis are "emasculated" then you have not listened to the voices of the people themselves, who bravely attempt each day to do the simple things that you, yourself, attempt to do less than bravely because you do those things outside a war zone.
Since you still have at least an illusion of Freedom of Speech and because you have 911 at your fingertips, you might assume that an Iraqi mother who does not yell out when she sees "roadside bombs being placed" might have a motive other than wanting to see her children live another day.
Saying "They want America out of their country but will do nothing that will allow us to leave" seems to me to overlook the fact that invading Iraq, which did not attack the United States, or the United States of America, WAS AND IS an illegal act; overlooks the FACT that "America" can leave Iraq any time it wants to regardless of any "allowance" from Iraqis ... and it leaves me wondering what such a person would do if his or her town or city were suddenly bombed, how he or she would react to having foreign tanks in his or her neighbourhood and foreign artillery shelling the area, how he or she would "comply" when foreign troops kick in his or her door and ransack the house ... makes me wonder at such thinking.
In a thread about Saddam's execution, when I read:
"If they can not or will not choose to collectively cooperate and become a friendly nation, then they have by default chosen to become isolationists. And should be treated as such in every sense of the word."
... I can assume that must be in reference to Iraq - to the Iraqi people, and I wonder with whom should they be cooperating ? How DO Iraqis not comprise a "friendly nation" - is that on the basis of resisting an illegal invasion of their country ? Iraqis are "isolationists" if they do not comply with foreign invaders ? Excuse me ?
Through what magic has the entire population of Iraq suddenly taken on such wholesale sins ?
If there is something that Iraqis en masse are truly guilty of, if there is some moral dilemma which needs solved in Iraq, then why are not the U.S. military forces *in possession* of at least a dozen other sovereign territories right now ?
Yes - maybe the U.S. should invade the Sudan ...
It has the power, if only for a little while yet.
.
posted by JamesB at 11:11 PM
0 comments
50,000 copies of the climate change documentary An Inconvenient Truth which were rejected by the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) after apparent pressure from Exxon and oil industry advocates are now offered free of charge to teachers via 
