OT... Saddam is executed. Right thing to do?

forge · Post by **forge** » Mon Jan 01, 2007 12:30 am

Meef Chaloin wrote:
Ask people in India or China if humanity/life is getting better. Better still ask Iraqis, Kurds, Afghanis, Sudanese, Amazon tribes.
.

actually in both india and china I think you'd find they'd say yes

Dex Methorphan · Post by **Dex Methorphan** » Mon Jan 01, 2007 12:57 am

forge wrote:
Meef Chaloin wrote:

actually in both india and china I think you'd find they'd say yes

I think this answer would depend on caste.

Meef Chaloin · Post by **Meef Chaloin** » Mon Jan 01, 2007 1:13 am

i have to disagree, people are still starving, deforming their babies to create an opportunity to beg...

society has always had people better off than others, ask the fortunate if life is better & of course they will say yes

zordon · Post by **zordon** » Mon Jan 01, 2007 1:52 am

It's ok as long as bush, cunnilingus rice, and rumsfeld are next. It should also have been televised as a pay per view event, before the liddel vs ortiz fight. Next year we can hang pdiddy for crimes of stupidity against humanity.

conny · Post by **conny** » Mon Jan 01, 2007 1:55 am

I may be spinning away in a strange direction, but the sudden killing of Saddam made me think about the killing of Lee Harvey Oswald. As if stopping things before they reveil too much to the public...

// C

knotkranky · Post by **knotkranky** » Mon Jan 01, 2007 2:52 am

I think running through the minds of our war mongers was very simple;
"The U.S. can bomb the hell out of your country, find you, hang you in front of the world, kill your government and torture everybody who knows you and put their families in prison for life. Don't fuck with america. Were crazy trigger happy fools! We don't care what happens. You see that Iran, NKorea, China, pakistan,,,, Ha ha ha wheeee Haaaaa!!!!"

Really. They think they've done the U.S.A. right by asserting ultimate power. They believe completely that it is a good for us bitter pill. They believe the world cannot be allowed roll where it may. They believe they hold the key to a lasting humanity and protection over what's left of humanities energy . They feel damn good about it too.

There's no question they've distilled it down to that level.

knotkranky · Post by **knotkranky** » Mon Jan 01, 2007 3:46 am

And my new years resolution for 2007 is less ot's and more music. Thanks for putting up with me. Happy new year. Off to the show......

Justin Thyme · Post by **Justin Thyme** » Mon Jan 01, 2007 5:03 am

Well, unfortunately for the US, we are in the category of "damned if you do, and damned if you don't". Largely due to the fact that we are one of the few countries in the world with the means to intervene in world affairs.

Half of the group will holler when we do get involved in an issue, and the other half will bitch when we leave it alone.

So, that means when there are things going on like ethnic cleansing in Burundi, people turn to the US to help, and not to <insert other country of choice here>. If we get involved, we're meddling. If we don't get involved, we are cold and indifferent to the suffering of others (or complicit on the side of the wrong-doers). How on earth could the US just sit by and let such attrocities happen.

Even Americans tend to hold this view of the US.

I'm not sure where the happy middle ground is in such issues, although I do believe that there should be more involvement by regional powers than strictly the US.

Unfortunately, in the case of Iraq invading Kuwait, there weren't really any regional powers who had the will and means to stand up to Hussein. Additionally, by Japans own constitution, they cannot put their armed forces outside of their own borders, so that they cannot be a strong force in the far east.

Dex Methorphan · Post by **Dex Methorphan** » Mon Jan 01, 2007 5:47 am

Justin Thyme wrote:Well, unfortunately for the US, we are in the category of "damned if you do, and damned if you don't".

A little consistency would be helpful. Action based on need rather than personal gain, etc.

For starters.

Justin Thyme · Post by **Justin Thyme** » Mon Jan 01, 2007 6:32 am

Dex Methorphan wrote:
Justin Thyme wrote:Well, unfortunately for the US, we are in the category of "damned if you do, and damned if you don't".
A little consistency would be helpful. Action based on need rather than personal gain, etc.

For starters.

Valid point.

Although I don't know as though it is quite as skewed as the average person thinks. For example, a little while ago I did a search on foreign aid, and 4 of the top 5 countries receiving aid were in the middle east (this was 2004 numbers, I think). And, obviously, only one of those was Israel. Which means the other 3 are non-Jewish states (read Arab and Muslim).

Additionally, just about everyone tends to view the world through their own eyes...which inevitably means a little bit of "what's the benefit to me?".

The US got heavily involved in Somalia (I went there twice....the place is in terrible shape), and there was no oil there. The US wanted something out of it for sure....increased influence and support of nw Africa. But there was absolutely nothing which was of direct value in getting involved there, other than the preservation of life, and trying to be the "good guy".

I had a discussion with a gent in Turkey regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict, and the US involvement in the region. He was very clear, "WE WANT YOU TO JUST GO AWAY AND LEAVE US ALONE!". And his next sentence was "WHY DIDN'T THE US INTERVENE TO HOLD BACK ISRAEL IN THE RECENT CONFLICT AND PROTECT THE LEBANESE?". One guy, on one single topic, arguing both sides in back to back sentences. They want us to leave...er....unless you want to intervene on our side, then by all means, what can we do to help you?

None of it is as cut-n-dried as some seem to think. Not to mention that the average Joe on the street really hears a very small percentage of what really happens to drum up US actions.

Additionally, with the way regimes change in the middle east and Africa, those which were once allies are now enemies.

But, enough of that! Let's move on to a happy and prosperous New Year to all!

Cheers!

Dex Methorphan · Post by **Dex Methorphan** » Mon Jan 01, 2007 7:47 am

Justin Thyme wrote: The US got heavily involved in Somalia (I went there twice....the place is in terrible shape), and there was no oil there. The US wanted something out of it for sure....increased influence and support of nw Africa. But there was absolutely nothing which was of direct value in getting involved there, other than the preservation of life, and trying to be the "good guy".

The US got involved in Somalia because 4 of the biggest oil companies have exclusive rights to literally 2/3 of Somalia. An agreement that was made prior to the civil war that ensued. The ONLY reason we are/were in Somalia is to bring order so that Amoco, Conoco, Chevron and Phillips can retain their exclusive access to explore for oil which was approved by Siad Barre.

Problem is, Siad Barre (a pro-US president) was overthrown (1990? early 1991), and all hell broke loose. Read up on Conoco's ties to the initial US military force in Mogadishu. Famine relief was part of the process of restoring order so that the four companies could return to their oil prospecting. Conoco had just stumbled onto a goldmine right when the civil war began too.

Contra · Post by **Contra** » Mon Jan 01, 2007 8:25 am

knotkranky wrote:And my new years resolution for 2007 is less ot's and more music. Thanks for putting up with me. Happy new year. Off to the show......

word man,
on the Oud forum its mainly muslims and a couple of us are israeli and some christians also and we just know, only music man only music. lets keep it peace.

Meef Chaloin · Post by **Meef Chaloin** » Mon Jan 01, 2007 11:40 am

justin, Iraq never needed the US to bomb the crap out of it, neither did Afghanistan, they dont need to be involved with Israel, and they dont need to flex their muscles to threaten other countries (who hold oil & dont go along with their plans). I cant see that any of the US's (and UKs) actions this millennium have helped anyone but the few fatcats. They go to Iraq to find big bad weapons, find none, try to pin 9/11 on Saddam (as Kronky pointed out a few times), turn the country into a civil war, all while backing and arming the most terrorist and corrupt country of all (Israel) and causing opium production and heroin exports to rocket in Afghanistan.

This charade has been going on while places that desperately need help get completely ignored. Sudan & Congo were (& still are) in far more desperate need for help than Iraq or Afghanistan ever was (and held a lot more terrorists). I dont know how you can say that people think they cant do right, it might help if they actually did help people from time to time.

Watch this and tell me that the right wars are being fought - http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?doc ... e+children

muscleandhate · Post by **muscleandhate** » Mon Jan 01, 2007 1:38 pm

the_planet wrote:I have mixed feelings about the execution. On one hand, it's great that such a horrible fucking asshole got it, but of course like on the first page of this thread, other governments needed to try him.

Execution was the right thing to do, in my opinion, but not before other governments had their time with him. Were he imprisoned for life, I bet some of his followers would've attempted to bring him back to power. That would've been a major nutroll.

You're savages really, can you not see the irony in executing someone for murder?

muscleandhate · Post by **muscleandhate** » Mon Jan 01, 2007 1:52 pm

Justin Thyme wrote:Well, unfortunately for the US, we are in the category of "damned if you do, and damned if you don't". Largely due to the fact that we are one of the few countries in the world with the means to intervene in world affairs.

Half of the group will holler when we do get involved in an issue, and the other half will bitch when we leave it alone.

So, that means when there are things going on like ethnic cleansing in Burundi, people turn to the US to help, and not to <insert other country of choice here>. If we get involved, we're meddling. If we don't get involved, we are cold and indifferent to the suffering of others (or complicit on the side of the wrong-doers). How on earth could the US just sit by and let such attrocities happen.

Even Americans tend to hold this view of the US.

I'm not sure where the happy middle ground is in such issues, although I do believe that there should be more involvement by regional powers than strictly the US.

Unfortunately, in the case of Iraq invading Kuwait, there weren't really any regional powers who had the will and means to stand up to Hussein. Additionally, by Japans own constitution, they cannot put their armed forces outside of their own borders, so that they cannot be a strong force in the far east.

As if the US ever acted in anyones interests but the power elite that run it. Over the past fifty years, the US has constantly undermined democracy and human rights globally. In the absence of the communist boogyman, and a united world against the perceived threat of it, the US has totally polarised world opinion squarely upon the basis of its recent actions. I think a lot of people have realised that the US is not some 'friendly world policeman' but de facto, a ruthless freemarket empire. But then people do call me cyincal.