They did it

I just read that the Iraqi government have hanged Saddam Hussein. I wonder if he was surprised they actually did it. I sort of doubt this will help the situation in Iraq, but maybe the finality will let some people there make up their minds about moving on, maybe even pick a direction they want the country to go.

I would think that there has been enough turmoil in that place that people there would want some peace and quiet for a change.

Its hard to tell. The Iraqis living in Australia are celebrating but they are the one's that escaped (for obvious reasons) its not so clear cut in Iraq.

I think the problems in Iraq are bigger than Sadaam now. Bugger if I know how to make it better and anyone who says they know the answer is probably selling dodgy sausages with the added extra of a bun.

I don't believe capital punishment can be justified. There's just no margin for error.

With a man like Hussein, who I believe we can safely assume is a man we can't accept roaming freely in our world, the margin-for-error-argument might not be applicable. At the moment, I can't argue for why I still deeply feel his execution is wrong.

I wish they would have put him in a cell for the rest of his life, treated him humanely and shown him the civilised way to deal with crime. I also wish that all his crimes would have been put to trial.

This entire affair was a good chance to show how a solid democratic justice system should work, but unfortunately I feel the hearings became a tragic parody of a court.

Kangaroo court, victor's justice, I've heard a few terms used for Saddam's trial... Legally, he probably shouldn't have been executed for the crimes that he was convicted of. The library of Congress has an interesting website about the trial http://www.loc.gov/law/public/saddam/saddam.html

I do think that doing it on the last day of the Haaj was an. . . [i:fc0722ee1e]interesting [/i:fc0722ee1e] choice to make though.

Thet wanted people to forget about it as soon as New Years came around. I also believe that capital punishment is wrong but there is a treatment for really horrible prisoners: they lock them up and they never ever see another human being again. All their essentiels arrive electronically.

While I do not agree with capital punishement... what would they have done with him if the didn't kill him? Put im in jail? in that case, where? Having Saddam anywhere near you would equal a great hazard to your health since groups would try to free him/kill him.

Also killing him gives him a chance to become a martyr, especially since he accpepted his punishment so 'regally'.

Nothing is ever easy

Even with Saddam Hussein out of the picture, the situation in Iraq is no better and probably worse than it was three years ago. The casualties and deaths still happen, so what has this execution achieved?
Nothing really, except to create a feel-good factor for the western forces in that they have rid the world of a 'tyrant' and renewed their option to keep up the fight against any number of successors who would try to take up the loose reigns of power.
I feel, along with many others, that this is simply a time wasting exercise until someone can think up an un-shakeable reason to claim the original 'Prime Objective' of the first Gulf War which was really to get their hands on the prime quality oil fields that abound in the country.

These two web sites give a fairly accurate picture of the casualties to date:-
http://www.icasualties.org/oif/ & http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

It seems a pointless waste of life just because some bone-idle officials are worried they might have to walk from their office to a restaurant across the street when the decreasing fuel supplies prevent them using their executive limousines.

I don't think that anyone believed that as soon as Saddam died, Iraq would turn into a happy land with chocolate rivers and marshmellow clouds. He was convicted of murder, and the Iraqis hang people for that.

What it achieved was a message from the Iraqi government that Saddam was no different from anyone else, that he was subject to the law. That 'justice' would be served in his case. Whether a person agrees or not that killing someone is just under any circumstances should be the subject of another debate. What message would the government have sent to the Iraqi people if Saddam got a jail term for killing God only knows how many people, while a common man is hung for killing one? That was one thing that the execution accomplished. Another would be a sort of psychological 'fresh start' for the government. I really do think that is why PM Maliki wanted Saddam's sentence carried out before the New Year... Maybe if he were less secular he wouldn't have really cared, but for some reason the common new year mattered to him.

And Joculator, I don't think that you're giving the Coalition enough stategic credit if you think that this is only about oil. Iraq is right in the middle of South West Asia. It would be a great place to have several military bases just in case there is "trouble" in Iran, Syria, Jordan, Turkey, Kuwait, or Saudi Arabia...

"Just in case", I wish I could believe there won't be trouble yet to come in that region.

I agree with the Llama on this one.
Whatever happened to that old saw 'when in Rome do as the Roman's do'?
I think that all reactionaries should be forced to go live for at least five years in the places they spend time gossiping about instead of sitting around sagely nodding their heads saying 'our way is right and bugger what you believe'.
It would make them all have to learn that circumstance determines your view, and different (creed, language, pigmentation, facial features, etc) people may just want the same as you - to get on with life; to earn/grow sufficient to get by; to sleep with a roof over their heads in a peaceful, crime free place, where all tolerate others as they in turn are tolerated.

During the first Gulf War, there seemed to be plenty of panic amongst coalition countries when Hussein gave orders to fire the oil fields. Maybe he knew something no one else did at the time.

Probably the reason there is no trouble in these other countries is that there are NO military bases containing "friendly coalition forces" in numbers that would constitute a threat to the inhabitants.

I completed 5 active tours of duty during my army career, much of the time trying to keep hostile encounters with the local inhabitants to a minimum and also keeping myself and my section alive. Then there were the 'happy days' of returning home to my family and facing the blank stares of the parents of my friends who were not as lucky.
So maybe I'll be forgiven for saying your comments are a little 'off the mark' and appear to come from the heart and not practical experience.

Remember this...Armies are in existence to do the bidding of their governments, without question. They are expected to carry out orders from a high command that is several hundreds of miles away who in effect know bugger all of what is really happening on the front lines.
Yes indeed, maybe we "should do as the Romans do" and put the politicians at the front of their armies right on the front line and let them see their wishes being carried out.

I just wonder what the reaction of residents of coalition countries would be if their respective governments were to re-introduce forced conscription (draft) to keep up the numbers in foreign engagements.

I apologize to others for drifting off the subject of this thread but yes, Hussein is dead and the Iraqis do not want foreign powers, or puppet governments, telling them what to do. There will be opposition indefinitely until leaders can face each other, without pointing weapons, and agree a settlement suitable to both sides.

[quote:43c50f01b8="Maljonic"]I agree with inwig here, which I don't think I ever have yet. I'm not sure that he was directing his comment at you, Joculator, but more the "pub experts" who stop at home and talk about the uncivilized whoevers without ever having met one of them, let alone an entire town full. Not just Westerners viewing Eastern/Middle-Easterners, but the other way around too.[/quote:43c50f01b8]
I did not take any of the comments personally, but I felt the views expressed sounded too much like, as you say, "the pub experts who stop at home...".

[quote:43c50f01b8="Maljonic"]Nevertheless, I hardly think being in the army on a tour of duty in somebody's country is the same as going to live there. You tend to get a somewhat tainted view of a place in such circumstances, and the same goes vice versa for their view of you when you're an occupying soldier.[/quote:43c50f01b8]

I agree with you up to a point on this one, but at the same time over the months/years you are there, you do meet people who are glad you are trying to help sort out the problems and whom you would, under different circumstances, visit socially, date their daughters, invite their sons to join the football team etc.
Unfortunately there are, in any country, groups who will try to disrupt the everyday running of things. If we look closer to home I think you will find many Britons who think Tony Blair is a complete failure and many Americans who dislike George Bush. Strange but true!

However, to finish on a lighter note... did you preview your post/quotes before submitting, Maljonic?

[i:43c50f01b8]Edited to correct grammar.[/i:43c50f01b8]

[quote:30803cde4a="Bradthewonderllama"]I really do think that is why PM Maliki wanted Saddam's sentence carried out before the New Year... Maybe if he were less secular he wouldn't have really cared, but for some reason the common new year mattered to him.[/quote:30803cde4a]

Yeah, I read that the US tried to delay handing over Saddam by demanding signed confirmations from both the PM and the President of Iraq, to at least distance the execution from the appeal refusal a little.

Both were handed over with a speed quite uncommon to bureaucratic actions.

Now, the really bad thing about the date is that it was on the eve of Eid al-Adha, the Muslim Festival of Sacrifice. It certainly made it easier in the Sunni Muslim world to see it as something done on purpose, out of spite.
Though admittedly, no date would have been good and any date would have seemed as something done out of spite by the Evil West, so the Iraqi government had nothing to lose on this one.

[quote:30803cde4a="Joculator"]During the first Gulf War, there seemed to be plenty of panic amongst coalition countries when Hussein gave orders to fire the oil fields. Maybe he knew something no one else did at the time. [/quote:30803cde4a]

Um, the point of the first Gulf War was to prevent Saddam from being the man controlling the largest oil supply in the world. It wasn't the invasion of Kuwait as much as the possibility of his invasion of Saudi Arabia. Oil is a global resource. You don't let a power-hungry bastard like Saddam take over the largest source of oil in the world.

And yes, I daresay the Coalition countries were in panic when Saddam fired the Kuwaiti oil fields. That sort of thing has far-reaching economic effects, what with oil being a global resource.


The second Gulf War was, in my opinion, mainly what Brad said on having a strategic location in a very volatile area handy, and I also think that the old "domino effect" theory still survived from the Vietnam days. Too bad it has little to do with actual reality.

[quote:30803cde4a="Joculator"]Probably the reason there is no trouble in these other countries is that there are NO military bases containing "friendly coalition forces" in numbers that would constitute a threat to the inhabitants. [/quote:30803cde4a]

Um... You have no idea how shaky the ME is, do you? Iraq is a battlefield not against the Americans, but mainly between Sunni and Shi'a Islam, a battle that's over a millenia old, and an extremely raw wound in Iraq where the Sunni minority used to rule the Shi'a majority. Iran wants to expand its field of influence, Saudi-Arabia is trying to protect its field of influence... and each leads a radical version of their respective sect religions.

Turkey has had a major campaign in it to turn the country into a religious Islamic country, most likely funded by interested parties in Saudi-Arabia. It's been on the brink of yet another military coup for the past year, which the military there does every now and then to keep the country both secular and a democracy.


Now, moving on... Saudi-Arabia's oil fields have been threatened by Al-Quaeda terrorist attempts. Jordan has had a high security level since the 2005 Amman bombings, and if we move a little out of the Gulf region to north Africa, Egypt's radical Muslim Brotherhood has been gaining both political power and support in an alarming pace.

Then you have Lebanon and their issues with Hezbollah and Syria, and you have Syria itself smuggling guns to anyone who who is nearby and willing to pay, and assassinating this or that Lebanese politician every now and then to keep Lebanon right on the brink of civil war and ripe for re-taking.


Things aren't always all that simple, Joculator, and with the Middle-East you have to start thinking in circles just to start making sense of all the tribalism and feuds that make this area the sizzling powder-keg that I like to call 'home'.


[quote:30803cde4a="Joculator"]I apologize to others for drifting off the subject of this thread but yes, Hussein is dead and the Iraqis do not want foreign powers, or puppet governments, telling them what to do. There will be opposition indefinitely until leaders can face each other, without pointing weapons, and agree a settlement suitable to both sides.[/quote:30803cde4a]

Iraq had elections. The elections brought the majority, the Shi'a, to the government. It is only a 'puppet government' to those Sunnis there who liked the old dictatorship days, and to those Arab dictatorships that don't want to see their Dictators' Club shrink even more. The Sunni militias want to kick out those took down Saddam, the Shi'a militias are trying to pacify them into submission and possibly put up their own dictator along the way, and the folks who mainly die are the civilians who aren't in the right sect as far as the various militias are concerned.

Compare the numbers, in the own sites you gave. Compare the Coalition and even Iraqi Military casualties in the past three years to Iraqi civilian casualty rates from the militias. They're so busy killing civilians that the 'occupation forces' and 'puppet government lackeys' are possibly the safest people in Iraq, barring gun smugglers.

[quote:667233cb66="Roman_K"]Um, the point of the first Gulf War was to prevent Saddam from being the man controlling the largest oil supply in the world. It wasn't the invasion of Kuwait as much as the possibility of his invasion of Saudi Arabia. Oil is a global resource. You don't let a power-hungry bastard like Saddam take over the largest source of oil in the world.[/quote:667233cb66]

Oil is a non-renewable resource and as such can only increase in value as supplies decrease. The country that holds the supply would evolve into a major player in the world economy passing current leaders in the process. Greed and jealousy go hand in hand and, politically speaking, are never far below the surface of leaders who are entrusted with the welfare of their own country; and more frighteningly, control the human resources to protect their position. It just needs the right (or wrong) reason to be triggered.
I can't quite remember a quote I read many years ago but it went along the lines of..."Those who have nothing, want something - Those who have plenty, want more".

[quote:667233cb66="Roman_K"]Um... You have no idea how shaky the ME is, do you? Iraq is a battlefield not against the Americans, but mainly between Sunni and Shi'a Islam, a battle that's over a millenia old, and an extremely raw wound in Iraq where the Sunni minority used to rule the Shi'a majority. Iran wants to expand its field of influence, Saudi-Arabia is trying to protect its field of influence... and each leads a radical version of their respective sect religions.[/quote:667233cb66]

Maybe I was unclear on my statement about the need for extra military bases. I should have said 'western military bases whose presence could be used as an excuse and a catalyst to inflame the internal unrest'.

Having both Jewish and Arabic friends here in the UK whom, I might add, get along exceptionally well with each other, I am aware of as much of the true situation in so much as their families relate to them via emails etc. (Newspapers do tend to be biased to their own country's interests).

I think it is a well known historical fact that religious differences were abroad across the Middle East and being settled long before any outside influences started taking an interest. Looked at in those conditions, does it not appear that we are entering the start of a modern series of Crusades?

[quote:667233cb66="Roman_K"]Things aren't always all that simple, Joculator, and with the Middle-East you have to start thinking in circles just to start making sense of all the tribalism and feuds that make this area the sizzling powder-keg that I like to call 'home'.[/quote:667233cb66]

I appreciate and respect your comments Roman, and perhaps one day someone will stop, just long enough, and think outside the circle.

[quote:8784dd19f5="Joculator"]Oil is a non-renewable resource and as such can only increase in value as supplies decrease. The country that holds the supply would evolve into a major player in the world economy passing current leaders in the process. Greed and jealousy go hand in hand and, politically speaking, are never far below the surface of leaders who are entrusted with the welfare of their own country; and more frighteningly, control the human resources to protect their position. It just needs the right (or wrong) reason to be triggered.
I can't quite remember a quote I read many years ago but it went along the lines of..."Those who have nothing, want something - Those who have plenty, want more". [/quote:8784dd19f5]

Couldn't agree more. At the same time, the Coalition forces will eventually leave Iraq. It was never even a question. Perhaps part of the goal in Iraq was secure an a government allied to the US, but oil isn't the only reason for acheiving that. It may have been part of the reasoning to secure said global resource out of Saddam's hands now that it appears to be all too dwindling, but I doubt it was the only reason.

[quote:8784dd19f5="Joculator"]Maybe I was unclear on my statement about the need for extra military bases. I should have said 'western military bases whose presence could be used as an excuse and a catalyst to inflame the internal unrest'. [/quote:8784dd19f5]

*nod* clearer now, yes. Thankee.

[quote:8784dd19f5="Joculator"]I think it is a well known historical fact that religious differences were abroad across the Middle East and being settled long before any outside influences started taking an interest. Looked at in those conditions, does it not appear that we are entering the start of a modern series of Crusades? [/quote:8784dd19f5]

In a way, yes. This time I believe it has more to do with the decades of nationalism that the Arab world has been going through, along with the deterioration of Muslim religious leadership to what the Catholic one used to be thanks to said decades of nationalism. Religion around here has been a political tool for decades, so it was only a matter of time before the actual religious leaders decided to make use of their power. Until now the whole region was geared to a huge clash of cultures with the West, but I believe internal strife will take over soon enough. You have two bent religious headquarters here, and they're opposed.

There were many differences around here, religious or otherwise. They were settled over time in the same manner as in the Western countries, which is to say either by sword or by the tired remnants of those who failed by the sword. And don't forget, just as the ME was exploited by the Crusaders to distract the population of Europe, the same was done in the ME by trying to conquer parts of Europe.

What is happening today can be compared to the Crusades in that a great deal of people in the ME are using the West to distract the local population. I sincerely doubt that the US would have even considered the Iraqi invasion had Al-Quaeda not wanted to wake up its Great Enemy, and gather mucho local support by doing so.

[quote:8784dd19f5="Joculator"]I appreciate and respect your comments Roman, and perhaps one day someone will stop, just long enough, and think outside the circle.[/quote:8784dd19f5]

Thank you.

And I share your hopes. I currently read two Egyptian blogs, two Sudanese blogs, and three Lebanese. Judging from the folks who write them, there is some hope for this area.

I have been reading this thread, I don't know enough about the issues to comment, but I will say that reading the above was a)really informative about the issues and b) a prime example of how people who are disagreeing can still be polite and talk it out.
Hopefully one day world leaders will do the same!

[quote:7b8fa326fe="Joculator"]Probably the reason there is no trouble in these other countries is that there are NO military bases containing "friendly coalition forces" in numbers that would constitute a threat to the inhabitants.[/quote:7b8fa326fe]

I more meant 'trouble' in the sense of "we want to go to war with country X for reason Y, but our forces are too far away/can't get their due to hostile governments".

[quote:7b8fa326fe="Joculator in regard to Inwig's comment"]I completed 5 active tours of duty during my army career, much of the time trying to keep hostile encounters with the local inhabitants to a minimum and also keeping myself and my section alive. Then there were the 'happy days' of returning home to my family and facing the blank stares of the parents of my friends who were not as lucky.
So maybe I'll be forgiven for saying your comments are a little 'off the mark' and appear to come from the heart and not practical experience. [/quote:7b8fa326fe]

I don't think that Inwig's comment was about soldiers... it was about politicians... I have to say that I didn't understand why you brought up your service time to refute his argument.

As for everything else, I pretty much agree with Roman in this. Particularly about the puppet government quote. Of course, as a government proves that it can not guarantee the well being of its populace people lose faith in it and start casting about for an alternative.



Edit 1, submitted instead of previewed WAYY too early...
Edit 2, to submit the intended post.

From first post
[quote:02c09636e0="Bradthewonderllama"]It would be a great place to have several military bases just in case there is "trouble" in Iran, Syria, Jordan, Turkey, Kuwait, or Saudi Arabia...[/quote:02c09636e0]
Second post
[quote:02c09636e0="Bradthewonderllama"]I more meant 'trouble' in the sense of "we want to go to war with country X for reason Y, but our forces are too far away/can't get their due to hostile governments"[/quote:02c09636e0]
An interesting use of the word 'want' - surely no-one really wants to start a war?
However, I think I clarified my original statement about military bases in my response to Roman_K by saying the the presence of foreign military bases could easily be used as an excuse and a catalyst to inflame any current internal unrest even further.
[quote:02c09636e0="inwig"]I think that all reactionaries should be forced to go live for at least five years in the places they spend time gossiping about instead of sitting around sagely nodding their heads saying 'our way is right and bugger what you believe'.[/quote:02c09636e0]
[quote:02c09636e0="Bradthewonderllama"]I don't think that Inwig's comment was about soldiers... it was about politicians... I have to say that I didn't understand why you brought up your service time to refute his argument.[/quote:02c09636e0]
I used the reference to my military service in response to inwig's statement to show that I had spent a good number of years living in the country I was gossiping about. I may not have fully understood the political reasons of why I was there, but I made a point of trying to understand the cultural and religious differences.
Surprisingly, some people accepted the situation and did talk to us. Under different circumstances we would have been invited to their homes for a meal, dated their daughters or gone to a football match with their sons. Unfortunately under the rules of engagement from both of our countries, we had to treat each other as hostiles.

My two posts exchanged with Roman_K did, I think, show that we were in agreement on one or two of the issues under discussion except we were coming from opposite directions. Personally, I feel I have added to my understanding of the whole situation from the exchange.

[quote:e83fd93f2c="Joculator"]However, I think I clarified my original statement about military bases in my response to Roman_K by saying the the presence of foreign military bases could easily be used as an excuse and a catalyst to inflame any current internal unrest even further. [/quote:e83fd93f2c]

Just to expand on that, it is my opinion that if someone around here needs an excuse, he creates it. American bases in the region just save the effort, but it isn't that much effort really.

[color=red:a955315632]Edit by Buzzfloyd: The first link given is to the full version of the leaked video of Saddam's execution. If you do not wish to see graphic footage of a man being hanged, do not click on the link.[/color:a955315632]

Well, after watching this video(which is *not* pleasant to watch, so think before you click) I feel highly disturbed. This seems to make sense now, as I think US officials understood more than I before.

My opinion? Muqtada Sadr pressured the Iraqi government into bumping up the date of Saddam's execution, either threatening or promising some quiet to get his way.

He then either bribed or scared some lower-end government officials and effectively had his men take over the execution. That didn't look like an execution by the way, that looked more like a lynching. The executioner certainly didn't seem too inclined to allow Saddam to finish his final prayers, and the shouts of Muqtada... Well... speak for themselves.

Then I read this blog post. The original article on Al-Arabiya is in Arabic, but I trust this blog to say tell the gist of it. Now... if Sadr does indeed own the rope that hanged Saddam, and actually *wanted* to own said rope... We're talking one seriously twisted individual here.


For those who don't know who Sadr is by the way, he leads the biggest Shi'a militia in Iraq, the Mahdi Army. He calls himself a Muslim cleric, and if I were to call him a fanatic I would be insulting other fanatics.

Looks to me like "here comes the new boss, same as the old boss" only in a religious instead of a secular context this time round. Sadr simply has too much clout, too much power. This scares me a little, to tell you the truth.

Your warning is good, Grace, and while I should have put up exactly that in retrospect I believe it would be best to keep yours now that it's there.