No, I think the significance is much more than symbolic.
He might not have been. He might have been. Either way, his capture and eventual trial by the Iraqis is an important step toward the reformation of Iraq.
[quote=“plasmatron”]… whilst the majority of those following this dirty little war will be gleefully lining up to pull the wool over their own eyes and declare this a great new era for liberty, justice and other long since diluted and adulterated cliché
Hahaha! Right. Take off your Bush-hater glasses and look around.[/quote]
Has Chimp become a synonym for Bush?[/quote]
It has, among the Bush-haters. It helps them to feel intellectually superior to Bush even while the economy strengthens and the war on terrorism continues to go well.
[quote=“tigerman”] It appears that the Iraqis, not the world or the US, will try Saddam. The Iraqis are concerned not so much with Saddam’s ties to al Qaeda or other terrorists, or with his WMD. They are concerned with his iron-fisted brutally oppressive rule of Iraq for the past 3 plus decades. There is abundant evidence to convict Saddam of murder and genocide, and I think the Iraqis will reinstate capital punishment for Saddam.
But, you’re right… this will be interesting.[/quote]
From my cold induced stupor…a ramble if you will… I am glad to hear that the Iraqis will try him. I am concerned that it would be a huge mess if the international courts were to try this case. I think it is clear that his actions were crimes against his own people first and foremost. As I was coming into town today in a sickness induced semi demented state… I was wondering about Saddam and his crimes against humanity. I mean I fully think the guy was a rat… evil… horid… but name a dictator who is a nice guy and I have a bridge to sell you… but anyway… I wonder about the evidence in this case. In the case of Silobo baby… we had huge mass graves, will they find (or have they found) the mass graves of genocide, or similar damning evididence?
And, now that this bastard has been caught, what is next? This is what my problem with the Iraq “war”, which problem state is next? There are a whole lot of evil people out there… would we go after N. Korea, they have WMD and are not afraid to use them? How do we “the royal we” pick and choose which evil doer gets chopped?
The prisons, rape rooms, mass graves, etc. have all been discovered and are well documented. Too bad we cannot find the wmds.
Second, yes, there are many other dictators, but as in all things, diplomacy is the art of the possible and takes into account all factors. We cannot go after North Korea in the same way we went after Saddam or Seoul is toast. That’s the problem with having allies. If the US wanted to only look to its own interests, it could take out the nuclear facilities in North Korea and leave the South Koreans and Japanese to deal with any retaliation but since we are a kind country…
Hahaha! Right. Take off your Bush-hater glasses and look around.[/quote]
Has Chimp become a synonym for Bush?[/quote]
It has, among the Bush-haters. It helps them to feel intellectually superior to Bush even while the economy strengthens and the war on terrorism continues to go well.[/quote]
…meanwhile, back at the ranch, Bush and the GOP continue to kick the Democrats around like some dirty futbol in some Rio back alley…
Not so sure about that. This whole thing will be very interesting. I would love to see new polling data that tries to find meaningful trends in this area. Specifically, I would love to see this hypothesis examined: how many American voters strongly supported Bush on the argument that “as long as Saddam lives, he wins, and thus I back Bush in 2004.” In other words, now that Saddam is patently out of the picture, some Reagan Democrats (for lack of a better term; this subset of voters may or may not have voted for Reagan, may or may not be Democrats) may feel freed up to more objectively ask themselves, “Am I better off now than in 2000?” If their answer is “no,” but Saddam is definitely out of the picture, then their support for Bush in 2004 might change.
Anyway, I agree: any trial will be riveting stuff. Also, thank god that bastard is no longer calling the shots down in that hole. Those poor mice and rats! And did he look like Tom Hanks in Castaway or what?
There are a lot of “evil” people out there. What worries me is that the U.S. is beginning to fish around for someone else to have a go at. Have a go at the DPRK but (and I fear a tongue lashing from Mr. F. Smith here), leave Iran alone for now and talk to them. They have after all shown remarkable restraint, not only recently but for many years and have shown little desire for military adventures since the revolution. I say restraint because of the fact that they have American troops on both sides of their borders; would the United States have shown similar restraint if there were hundreds of thousands of Iranian or North Korean troops in Canada and Mexico? Of course not. Yes yes yes, I know it is a far-flung notion but the U.S. would lash out if this were more than a hypothesis. Iran therefore needs to be engaged; they are more moderate in their institutions, political and social, than many states the U.S. supports e.g. KSA. and much more than the media would have us believe. There may well be 400 al Qaeda people in Iran but there may be many more in the U.S. but this is not reason enough to threaten Iran. So please, all you Republicans out there, a bit of restraint please. The recent concessions to the IAEA with regard to the n-power plant in Buhshehr shows that dialogue with Iran does work and can yield results. Leave them alone and stop angling for a scrap.
The idea all along was that booting Saddam and setting up a relatively free and democratic Iraq and Afghanistan (along with the establishment of a democratic Palestinian state) would be enough to encourage reform in Iran, Syria, Jordan, Lebenon and SA. I don’t think anyone is itching for a fight with Iran at the moment.
So why doesn’t the U.S. stop trying to elevate the nuclear issue to the level of the Security Council? The U.S. has issued threats and made strong inferences regarding Iran which when read and heard by people who do not blindly follow Bush sound pretty much like they are itching for a scrap. Can’t you EVER concede a point?
We cannot go after North Korea without turning South Korea into ashes.
As to Iran, interesting analogy but one that reveals your moral equivalence. How would Iran feel if we had troops all around and how would we feel if the situation was reversed. The US is not a dictatorship or warmongering military industrial complex. The situation is not the same. One is a “bad” nation. The other is the primary force of “order” in the world. Argue all day if you like about whether that “order” is “good” or not.
Iran has not been a good world citizen unless you compare it with Saddam and even then it comes up lacking in many areas. It supports all sorts of terrorist organizations (No. 1 in the world in this dept) and has illegally (according to real intl treaties that it has signed) attempted to develop nuclear weapons for 20 years. So where is the restraint?
We cannot move against Iran now. I accept that, but to pretend that Iran is somehow okay is wrong as well. And why not take out Syria? That would put an end to Syrian nonesense in Lebanon and end support for Hezbollah and Hamas while adding yet another nation to the ranks of a growing “civilized” Middle East. Look at the progress in Saudi Arabia recently. Sometimes military action is not necessary. Let’s see if it works out but if not the military option has to be on the table.
Don’t you know that you are supposed to “concede points” occasionally to show your “good will.” I mean given that there are no moral standards or objective rights and wrongs, you must give in occasionally to ensure that “dialogue” continues. Get it? Now get with the program.
Let me show you how: I Fred Smith concede that Saddam Hussein was occasionally “nice” to his family members and various stray animals and even once did something relatively charitable. Therefore we cannot say that he was a 100-percent “bad” person. Everyone has some “good.” Maybe if we had sent a card to Saddam telling him that we “cared” perhaps he would not have been so driven to “prove himself” to us and the world community. We are therefore morally culpable for “pushing” him to the limit. We are equally to blame. etc etc. Now you try…
the UN Security Council? That bastion of decisive action?[/quote]
BroonAle, tigerman’s right. The UN Security Council is a limp dick. As long as authoritarian governments like the People’s Republic of China have veto power, nothing of importance will ever be accomplished there.
Blueface: Iraq invaded Iran, not the other way round. Defending onself when a foreign army streams over ones borders hardly constitutes military adventurism. So I guess I didn’t miss it.
No sorry, you must have missed all the terrorist organizations that Iran has funded throughout the past 20 years. In fact, Iran is the NO. 1 supporter of terrorism in the world. Now if you want to get morally fluffy, who’s to say what terrorism is, blah blah, check out the other thread. In the meantime, for those of us who are not confused as to what constitutes terrorism, we will remain very concerned about Iran getting nuclear weapons and will remain very critical of Iran’s severe human rights abuses and support of terrorism worldwide. I also wouldn’t mind seeing them hand over their al Qaeda detainees but maybe this will be a tit for tat thing when the US administrator Paul Bremer expels the anti-Iran group from Iraq?
Maoman: What I said was that the U.S. wanted to take it to the security council which is elevating the issue from the level of the IAEA. I mentioned this as an example of the U.S. wanting tto make Iran a bigger deal of the nuclear isue than is neccessary. I didn’t say that it should ergo implying that the security council was the proper forum for the issue to be discussed. I agree the security council is a ‘limp dick’ but that being the case why does the U.S. want to take it there? The U.S. has rendered the UN limp but it can’t have things both ways. Mr. Smith, your sarcasm is unbecoming. If you can’t say anything constructive or show a little respect to others who wear shirts other than black in colour, then don’t. Your post was childish.
You’re right. I misread your question. That should count as a type of concession, no?
In any event, after the fiasco in connection with the UNSC’s inaction regarding Iraq, I don’t think any US attempts to get the issue to the UNSC should be decribed as trying to “elevate” the issue. We all know what happens to issues of which the UNSC resolves to remain seized.
I concede that I don’t know the answer to that question. I suspect, however, that the US is still (who knows why?) trying to give the UNSC some legitimacy… a chance to “proove” itself a viable and relevant organ???
I disagree… I think the US gave the UNSC a chance to be relevant… but the UNSC dropped the ball, so to speak.
BroonAle, its a bit rough and tumble in this forum. Don’t take anything too seriously.
For the record, I find it very difficult to argue with someone going by the name “BroonAle”… Maybe we’ll meet some day and have a few brune ales?
