« Home | The Perfect Present...not! » | Easy there, Granny. » | Person of the Year » | Punctuation » | Courage to Resist » | Plumber » | Pictorial » | What's in a name? » | Buddha with Thousand Hands » | Tradition »

Do-over...?

[Photo Saddam Hussein by iDip]

Something to think about over your morning coffee today...

Let's say we call the whole thing off. We play the do-over card, we pull our troops from Iraq, stand up what's left of the original Iraqi government, reinstall Saddam as lead, and watch. What happens?

Would the violence we're seeing day to day continue? Would it stop? Would it just change? Would those that aren't attacking today start attacking those that attacked yesterday? Would his rule bring back the very balance that we can't seem to find?

Is this what those that are carrying out today's attacks wish would happen? (What -do- they want? Maybe that's another post altogether for another day.)

If the violence continued, and Saddam ordered his Republican Guard to root out and kill those that were attacking (or threatening to attack, or planning to attack, say..) governmental and civilian lives, what would our reaction be? Would we support his right to defend the Iraqi people? the Iraqi govt? Would we label it a crime against humanity later?

I struggle with identifying the difference between what we're doing there today, and the crime that he's to be executed this month (or whenever) for. Ordering the death of those committed to undermining or destroying the existing government. Aren't these our orders, too?

Technorati tags: ,

Well, nevermind. He's gone.

I have mixed feelings about the whole thing -- it just doesn't seem right to me. Possibly because of the bad circumstance that is the war. For a reason I can't explain, I have sympathy for the man, despite all the atrocities that are attributed to him...

Would anyone here have sympathy for Saddam or struggle with the issue of his execution if 27 members of YOUR family were murdered on his orders?

Just something else to think about.

You'll find that I didn't say I disagreed with the ruling. Nor do I think he should've been allowed to go free.

Now, that said... do you believe that anyone who orders the deaths of people that threaten to undermine/destroy an existing government should be penalized with hanging? Anyone.. from any country... ? Other leaders .. say?

This ruling and execution sets a precedent.

I struggle with this issue, because I believe that WE are ordering the killing of people in Iraq -- people that also have families. And those people, as a result of this ruling, will have very little sympathy for -our- soldiers/commanders/leaders if they decide to come over, capture, try, and convict our folks for doing exactly what we believe Saddam was guilty of.

Very specifically, do you believe that our leaders are held to a different standard than Saddam was held? When we order the deaths of those responsible for attacks on our people, or on our government officials, should our leaders be held and tried for crimes against humanity?

lv7

No sympathy for Saddam first and foremost. He had a contract out on one of our President's life. George H.W. Bush. Second he killed his own people and tortured them because they were opposed to him. Our gov't does not launch chemical weapons across our country and kill our citizens. They don't hang our citizens when we speak out.

This ruling does not necessarily set a precedent. It has been ordered out for many thousands of years before our time. That's the media's blah, blah, blah. Remember the hanging of Benito Mussolini in the town square in WWII?

We are not ordering the killing of people in Iraq. If we were ordering the killing of people in Iraq, they would all be dead by now and it would have been done a long time ago...2003-2004.

These people having very little sympathy for our soldiers/commanders/leaders? Saddam didn't any sympathy for his own people. They are extremely happy he is not in power. I would be to if I was living in hell on earth.

Convicting us? We are not the ones killing our own citizens. He did this and now he has to pay the consequences. Our soldiers are not there to obliterate the country. If they were, like I said earlier, we could have turned that country into Victory Lake a few years ago.

Our leaders are held to a different standard. They don't kill their own citizens....again. The ordering of deaths for those who attack us is plain and simple. We are eliminating a threat to our country and our lives. Taking out 1 or 2 key people is peanuts compared to if we went in and killed tens of hundreds of thousands; now that is crime against humanity.

I think that since he was captured by international forces he should have been tried and punished by international rule. And that would not had been the death penalty.

He had a contract out on one of our President's life. George H.W. Bush.

This is exactly my point. We had multiple contracts out to find/kill Saddam. What's the difference? If we're saying that he's wrong, fine. He's wrong. But then, so must we be. I have a very serious problem with us demanding that foreign leaders not do the very things we do.

We bombed restaurant after restaurant, before war was ever even declared, trying to assassinate him, killing innocent civilians in the process. If they struck restaurants in the US, because Bush was supposed to be present, would you seriously believe they were justified, simply because he doesn't mesh up with what they believe is morally right? We went in, claiming that since Saddam's actions didn't jive with our set of morals, we had a right to not only remove him from power, but kill him outright without a formal declaration of war. If we claim that it's right for us to act that way, we have to be ready to accept them when they do it too.

gov't does not launch chemical weapons across our country and kill our citizens.

Nor did he just send over some chemical weapons one day on a whim. The United States hasn't faced an internal war since the Civil War, and you can bet that during that time, leaders from both sides, absolutely, ordered the deaths of american citizens that wanted to harm "their" side.

Further, you can absolutely bet that our government wouldn't hesitate to convict citizens found to have planned and who had attempted to kill our President. Do you truly believe we would simply let them go free? Freedom of political expression? Assassination?

We are not ordering the killing of people in Iraq.

Maybe I'm just reading different news sources... but I'm definately under the impression that we're ordering attacks on groups in Iraq that are attacking the general population and current governmental folks. Saddam ordered the deaths of groups that were effectively an insurgency against his rule. As we order the deaths of groups under the exact same pretext, I fail to see a clear distinction.

The ordering of deaths for those who attack us is plain and simple. We are eliminating a threat to our country and our lives.

Exactly.

And after we're done 'eliminating'.. I believe we'll need to be held to the same accords that we held him too, because he would absolutely have said he was doing the same thing by issuing the orders he gave.

1 or 2 key people is peanuts compared to if we went in and killed tens of hundreds of thousands; now that is crime against humanity.

No argument there. Over 50,000 Iraqis have been killed so far. (one tracking site actually lists the deaths at 733,854, but that includes all deaths related to the war) Should those responsible for the ordering of their deaths be tried for crimes against humanity?

I would like nothing more than the leaders behind these daily suicide attacks to face justice for their orders.

But not all Iraqi deaths have been ordered by the insurgency.

Are we immune from prosecution for the deaths we're responsible for?
Why?

--

Please understand, that my point isn't to say that Saddam is innocent. I'm saying that by holding him accountable in this way, other decisions made by other leaders should result in the same penalty.

Or else... we don't hold the original person accountable. But, I believe you have to pick one or the other. It makes little sense to me why it's okay for us to do anything we want, and it's not okay for them.

--

My original question was simply this... is there anything that anyone at this stage could do to quell what's happening there? More troops, less troops, red troops, blue troops. If we called the whole thing off, would make any difference at all? If we stay, will it make any difference at all?

I ask, because I don't know. I don't know whether this insurgency would stop attacking if we pulled our guys out. They say they would. Is that enough? What if they truly would? If they truly would call off all future attacks because we pulled our military forces out, wouldn't that be a victory? Would you/we support our troops leaving, in order to have peace there?

I was wondering how long it would take before people would start posting entries like this one attempting to compare the murderous Saddam to what we are doing over there. Saddam committed crimes against humanity, we are helping the Iraqi government restore their control.

Saddam Hussein got the punishment he deserved for the crimes he committed against the people of Iraq. Besides, the crimes for which he was executed were only just the beginning of the charges he faced.

Saddam Hussein got the punishment he deserved for the crimes he committed against the people of Iraq.

Agreed. Will our leaders get the punishment they deserve for the crimes we've committed against the people of Iraq?

You mentioned that we're helping their government restore control, and I'm interested to know if you feel like Saddam killed people simply to kill them, or if it was to 'restore control' in the exact same way?

I'm still trying to determine why our orders to kill the insurgency there is different than his orders to kill groups intending to destabilze the government. If you think they're different.. awesome.. why? How are they different? Why should we not be held accountable for our orders like he was? Simply because we label it 'help'? Is that enough?

I think, when judging action taken by a person or entity, consideration of the motives behind the action is extremely important. I do not believe that we had noble intentions when we invaded Iraq, nor do I believe it was essential for our national security. Therefore, the soldiers and Iraqis that have died, have done so because of dishonorable intentions. The deaths were the result of someone's agenda, just as much as that of those killed by Saddam.

Additionally, we are trying to impose a Western way of life on the Iraqi's, without respect for their cultural and religious traditions. It is not up to us to decide how they should live and for us to declare that our way is best. Again, people are dying because someone/thing is forcing their agenda on the masses...

I also feel we should be thankful that we have the freedom to openly discuss these issues.

Post a Comment

Links to this post

Create a Link