Saddaam Hussein given death sentence

[Samuel Dravis]

@SD-you were making the assumption of gladness. I was no more ambiguous than you were presumptuous.

I concede that.

 

The difference between us is that you don't seem to support the DP under any circumstances and I'm willing to consider it a viable alternative.

Not exactly. If you were to prove that Saddam would have an actual chance at escape and would be able to do significant harm after said escape, then I might consider it as an alternative. That would simply be protecting the innocent. However... things being as they are, I just don't see how you justify it.

 

Furthermore, your assumptions about the security of SH prison arrangements would only hold if he were actually jailed outside Iraq. More than a few people wouldn't mind trying to get him out, if only to blacken the new govenment's eyes. If they're not afraid to attack the US military, they'd be that much less fearful to attack Iraqi forces.

Then why not send him to the UN prisons or something like I said? They held Slobodan Milosevic quite well, and I daresay people had reason to hate him as much as they do Saddam. I'm sure it wouldn't have been much a problem to ask.

 

 

 

Spider- I'm curious as to how your empathetic morality applies to Saddam's case here. Could you explain that a bit?

[Spider AL]

Originally Posted by Samuel Dravis:

Spider- I'm curious as to how your empathetic morality applies to Saddam's case here. Could you explain that a bit?

An interesting question. Let me outline what I consider to be the moral position:

 

Killing is not generally considered to be moral, but there are notable exceptions. For instance, in defence of one's own life, it is morally acceptable to kill. As a general principle therefore, when someone chooses to make an attempt on the life of another, they are effectively forfeiting their own moral right to life.

 

As a secondary principle, morality is very much about accepting responsibility for one's actions, and holding others accountable for their actions. There must be a penalty for one's immoral actions.

 

Possibly the greatest (morally and legally speaking) crimes it is possible to commit are war crimes. They devastate the greatest number of people, often have a great effect on local ecosystems and are always committed with some petty monetary gain in mind. Therefore they are some of the most utterly immoral crimes one can commit.

 

It is therefore arguable that the most severe legal punishment available should be meted out to those who commit war crimes.

 

Now I personally believe that in principle, imprisonment is much more moral than the death penalty, in that AFTER a crime has been committed, one cannot kill the murderer "in self defence". However, if the death penalty is a penalty that is handed out under the law, universally for the same crimes, it is more moral than a death penalty which is handed out arbitrarily, as it has been in this case.

 

Furthermore, though from my point of view the death penalty when compared to peaceful imprisonment is comparatively immoral, if I were Saddam Hussein, I could have no moral argument against the death penalty, as I had visited death upon others thousands of times over. And practically speaking, if imprisoned, he should be imprisoned for life, away from all aspects of life outside his prison. In effect, not very different from death.

 

An additional concern is the practical cost of imprisonment. I don't think it would be moral to bill the Iraqi people for the upkeep of the man who oppressed them, and that would of course be the inevitable result. (as the US alliance never foots any bills it doesn't have to.)

 

So whether people like Saddam should be killed or imprisoned is a complex moral question. So complex, in fact, that I find that I cannot give a definitive answer.

 

As I've said before in this thread, I'm not sure that the act of executing Saddam would be entirely immoral. But what's certain is that the manner in which he was captured, in which he was brought to trial, in which he has now been sentenced, is totally immoral.

 

-

 

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``:

If they set out to kill innocent people and take over the country for themselves, yes.

I don't think it's in any doubt that by going to war for spurious reasons, our governments did indeed "set out to kill innocent people". And since they had no altruistic reason for invading Iraq (obviously no WMDs, and look at all the wonderful things that have happened to the Iraqis now that bad old Saddam is gone) it must be concluded that our governments went into Iraq in order to install a more sympathetic puppet regime in place of Saddam. So yes, they also went in to the country "for themselves".

 

So by your reasoning and mine, the crimes of our governments are comparable to the crimes of Saddam.

[Mace MacLeod]

Well Saddam had such an ego he probably thought he was well hung, now he's going to prove it.

*insert comic snare drum double-tap and cymbal crash here* Ouuuuuch......

Second, your contention that the war was illegal, doesn't pass muster. There was never anything other than a ceasefire declared at the end of Desert Storm. So, no peace, no new "illegal" war. It also goes to the whole point of international law you so cherish. If the UN cannot or will not enforce it's edicts, them no one is ultimatley bound by it's decisions. As mordibund as that other outfit, the League of Nations. However, perhaps you merely mean that the US should have formally declared war on Saddam, though I'm sure you'd contend that'd be illicit as well. International law is like the bastard stepchild no one wants to recognize till it benefits them.

Uh...well, that's a total load. Just because the US decided to ignore international law with the UK hopping faithfully along behind in puppy-dog supplication doesn't make international law any less valid, or the war any less illegal. With its repeated efforts to block the formation of a UN rapid reaction force with real teeth, it's the US itself which has deliberately prevented the UN from being strong enough to actually to actually deter countries from breaking International Law, as it might not agree with the US' self-appointed role of World Police That Gets To Break Whatever Laws It Wants To. The US had no international mandate to invade Iraq, no evidence that Iraq had any ability or intention to attack the US or its allies, and now three years later, no sign of any Weapons of Mass (or even Moderate) Destruction, no collusion with Osama or al-Qaeda over 9/11, none of that at all. Just because the US likes to pick and choose what laws it follows at a whim doesn't make those laws any less binding.

Also, international law is not permanently binding on any nation. It's a mechanism that lacks any real teeth, except when it suits other's purposes. It's about as binding as the line "till death do us part" is to a serial monogamist.

See above.

[Totenkopf]

Spider, I knew you couldn't resist picking a scab, so to speak. You are basically disingenuous or lying to yourself (which I guess is your right). You typed the following: "I personally believe that when a man seeks to kill another creature for purely immoral reasons, he forfeits his own right to life. So you could say in a way I'm in favour of the death penalty". Yet you then proceed to rail against the EXECUTION of Saddam Hussein. I never said (verbatim or conclusively--"I never stipulated you were against ALL killing b/c you seemed to oppose SH's execution") that you didn't think Saddam had lost his lease on life, but a death sentence is a process. You've made it quite clear that you think that that has been tainted and thus "not moral". Thus, it's FAIR to conclude that you think his execution is either immoral or at best amoral. And since you go to such great legths belaboring the whole hypocrisy deal, it's not unfair to conclude that you think the execution is immoral (or amoral, again) b/c your nemesis in the US (and elsewhere) aren't being hanged with him.

 

One thing is certain, though, and that is that you don't read too well. I made it VERY clear that I got your premise about hypocrisy and DISMISSED it as irrelevant, stating so at least once already. Not my fault that bothers you.

You're missives drip with condescension and perhaps even incredulity. I doubt you aren't aware of this. But I do think you're frustrated that I don't answer it b/c it's apparent you want to use the label hypocrite. However, as I already stated, my view of the events would have to match yours for me to be guilty of hypocrisy.

 

As to international law, there are several probems with your contention about the morality of laws. If every nation has a law that YOU think is immoral, but it's still universally applied, then it's apparently moral b/c you claim for a law to be moral it has to be applied across the board. "international law is necessary if we are to behave morally as nations. Law has to be universally applied, or it is not moral." No doubt you blow a vessel here and claim I'm taking you out of context. For instance, if all the countries of the world decided to deport ('cause we all know that killing would violate your concept of morality as spelled out throughout these threads) people of a certain type(be they athiests, Jews, Catholics, etc..) to another land yet unsettled, that would be morally ok b/c all NATIONS were doing it. If you have a problem with such an interpretation, you should perhaps tighten up your definition. It wouldn't be unfair to conclude from your statement (your protestations, if any, aside) that arguably amoral or immoral national laws could become moral if all nations applied them.

 

The reason I dismiss the UN as just another mordibund entity is that it doesn't take but one SC veto to sidline it's actions. Had the rep from the USSR not been "missing" in 1950, you'd probably contend that the US "invasion" of Korea would've been illegal and immoral b/c the UN hadn't signed off on it. And more people died there in 3 years than in Iraq. The UN is just the face behind which the major political powers do their business. It has no ability to enforce anything. If your government/qwuasi-governmental body lacks the power to enforce the laws it proclaims, why should anyone feel bound by any law they don't personally disagree with? In the world of politics, that means nations can revert to bilateral or multilateral agreements to conduct their business in an acceptable fashion. Just because a law isn't (yet?) international in scope doesn't make it inherently immoral.

 

 

"Does Saddam deserve to die? Well as a brutal dictator if ANYONE deserves death, he does." That's about resounding an approval as good riddance to bad rubbish. Celebration in the context you're actually using it is not devoid of emotional content. On 9/11, I overheard someone say "I'm surprised it took them that long to think of that". That could be twisted in a manner of ways. Not having any aural cues, I could view that as simply as an acknowledgement that nobody'd thought of that before. I could also take it as a somewhat contemptuous approval of someone's action, with the implication that someone finally figured it out and did it, and about bloody time. So, does that comment celebrate anything? That's merely, like yours, a SUBJECTIVE call.

 

This disagreement between us reminds me of the admonition that if two people don't agree on a set of first principles, there's no use arguing further b/c your basically talking past one another, not to one another. I, at least. realized that we're not going to agree and offered an out. You obviously were too proud to accept it. It's a debating forum, yes, but it's not just our forum. If you feel that you must drag this out, then pm me instead. Otherwise, I guess you must view this forum as a form of performance art and you insecurely need an audience for whom to perform.

 

@SD-well, I suppose you should petition the government in Iraq and point that out. B/c I agree that that would probably be the only way you might get around the security problem (ie removing him from Iraq). Only other possible problem you might run into is if terrorists et al decided to try and use SH as some kind of bargaining chip whereby they'd threaten certain actions lest he be released. Little to be gained when the person in question is 6 feet under.

[ET Warrior]

One thing is certain, though, and that is that you don't read too well. I made it VERY clear that I got your premise about hypocrisy and DISMISSED it as irrelevant, stating so at least once already. Not my fault that bothers you.

Yet you never gave any adequate reason WHY you can dismiss it without simply being guilty of ignoring something you are unable to refute. Why is it that Saddam deserves death for his orders that resulted in the deaths of innocents but OUR leaders orders that resulted in the deaths of innocents are A-okay?

 

As to international law, there are several probems with your contention about the morality of laws.

Actually, there aren't several problems, if you're willing to use a little logic when you read his position. It seems that you're nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking, but it seems clear that any law which is immoral, should not become a law in the first place. And if it is universally applied it is STILL immoral. MORAL laws, however MUST be applied universally, or you are not being moral. It has nothing to do with what individuals THINK is moral or not, but rather what actually is or is not moral. You stance that immoral laws would be moral if applied universally is erroneous, and an obvious misinterpretation of the point.

 

If your government/quasi-governmental body lacks the power to enforce the laws it proclaims, why should anyone feel bound by any law they don't personally disagree with?

Because that is how rational and cooperative nations should act? Because it is what is the morally correct thing to do? If the United States were unable to punish you for rape and murder does that mean you should not feel bound to abide by the laws that say you cannot do those things? I should think not. If you believe that invading a sovereign nation is acceptable despite the lack of UN backing, then you must believe that it is acceptable for other nations to invade the US if they feel they are justified, despite what other people think.

 

Only other possible problem you might run into is if terrorists et al decided to try and use SH as some kind of bargaining chip whereby they'd threaten certain actions lest he be released.

And there is no chance they would threaten certain actions unless he is released BEFORE he is executed? And threaten something even WORSE if the execution goes through? Thanks, but I've had enough of terrorist threat scare tactics from my government in the last 5 years. I don't let that impact my decision making.

[Spider AL]

Originally Posted by Totenkopf:

Spider, I knew you couldn't resist picking a scab, so to speak. You are basically disingenuous or lying to yourself (which I guess is your right). You typed the following: "I personally believe that when a man seeks to kill another creature for purely immoral reasons, he forfeits his own right to life. So you could say in a way I'm in favour of the death penalty". Yet you then proceed to rail against the EXECUTION of Saddam Hussein.

Wrong once again. And quite a glaring error too. If I'm "railing" against anything, it's the sentencing of Saddam by this immoral and illegal court. I've made it quite clear that I don't necessarily consider the act of killing Saddam- by itself- to be immoral. And perhaps if I say it enough, you'll get it into your head.

 

So once again, no contradiction, no disingenuousness.

 

Originally Posted by Totenkopf:

I never said (verbatim or conclusively--"I never stipulated you were against ALL killing b/c you seemed to oppose SH's execution") that you didn't think Saddam had lost his lease on life, but a death sentence is a process.

You said that I must be against all capital punishment because you thought I was against this instance of capital punishment. (Wrongly.)

 

And I showed that you were wrong. End of story.

 

Originally Posted by Totenkopf:

You've made it quite clear that you think that that has been tainted and thus "not moral". Thus, it's FAIR to conclude that you think his execution is either immoral or at best amoral.

Once again you miss an important (and obvious) distinction. I realise that the sentence of the court, the court, and the government that appointed the court are all morally tainted. But that doesn't mean I believe that- in principle- the death penalty for those guilty of war crimes is an immoral penalty. As I've stated many times.

 

If Saddam were tried by a court conforming to international laws and sentenced under those laws, for example, I would not consider the sentence to be immoral. But this court does not conform to international law, and its sentence is as immoral as the sentence of any lynch-mob, whether the victim morally deserves to die or not.

 

Originally Posted by Totenkopf:

And since you go to such great legths belaboring the whole hypocrisy deal, it's not unfair to conclude that you think the execution is immoral (or amoral, again) b/c your nemesis in the US (and elsewhere) aren't being hanged with him.

Incorrect, it's just one of your illogical sweeping assumptions again. And furthermore, "nemesis in the US"? Those of our leaders who are guilty of war crimes are hardly my nemeses. They've never done anything unpleasant to me personally. The fact that I calmly recognise their amorality doesn't mean I'm their rabid foeman. But if YOU don't recognise their amorality, that does rather make you wilfully ignorant.

 

Originally Posted by Totenkopf:

One thing is certain, though, and that is that you don't read too well.

Juvenile.

 

Originally Posted by Totenkopf:

I made it VERY clear that I got your premise about hypocrisy and DISMISSED it as irrelevant, stating so at least once already. Not my fault that bothers you.

Oh, but I did notice that you failed to respond to my statement/query regarding the hypocrisy of not approving of the same punishment for our leaders as you approve of for Saddam. But I'm not going to stop saying it just because you consistently run away from it. Answer the question. Would you laud the hangings of Tony Blair, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz as you do the hanging of Saddam? If the answer is no, you're a hypocrite.

 

Originally Posted by Totenkopf:

You're missives drip with condescension and perhaps even incredulity.

Disagreeing with your frankly dubious arguments does not make me condescending. And the only thing I'm incredulous about is your ability to blind yourself to the obvious. You think the invasion of Iraq was legal, for instance. Actually I'm not sure you meant to use the word "incredulous". Is that really what you meant?

 

Originally Posted by Totenkopf:

But I do think you're frustrated that I don't answer it b/c it's apparent you want to use the label hypocrite. However, as I already stated, my view of the events would have to match yours for me to be guilty of hypocrisy.

Whether or not you're a hypocrite has nothing to do with your "view of the events". It has everything to do with you being guilty of double-standards. Are you guilty of double standards? Well to help us find out, answer the question: Are you in favour of hanging our leaders in the same way that you are in favour of hanging Saddam?

 

Originally Posted by Totenkopf:

As to international law, there are several probems with your contention about the morality of laws. If every nation has a law that YOU think is immoral, but it's still universally applied, then it's apparently moral b/c you claim for a law to be moral it has to be applied across the board. "international law is necessary if we are to behave morally as nations. Law has to be universally applied, or it is not moral."

Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa. Wrong. I don't know what's wrong with your reasoning powers, but something is wrong.

 

I have never said that if a law was universally applied "that makes it moral". I have stated that a law can ONLY be moral if it's universally applied. But of course, it may still be an immoral law. Let me make the position clear:

 

If there was a law stating that nobody could keep slaves, that would be most moral.

(A moral law, universally applied.)

If there was a law stating that people of every race could keep slaves of every race, that would be immoral.

(Universally applied, but still immoral.)

If there was a law stating that white people could keep slaves of every other race, that would be LEAST moral.

(An immoral law, unevenly applied.)

 

I've never said anything different. Once again, show me where I have.

 

Originally Posted by Totenkopf:

The UN is just the face behind which the major political powers do their business. It has no ability to enforce anything. If your government/qwuasi-governmental body lacks the power to enforce the laws it proclaims, why should anyone feel bound by any law they don't personally disagree with?

For the same reason that a thief must abide by the laws stating that he can't steal, even though he disagrees with it.

 

And once again, you rattle out the totally fallacious argument that if the UN can't enforce its laws, those laws are not binding. What utter rot, morally bankrupt and completely nonsensical.

 

You steal an old lady's purse. The policeman who chases you can't catch you for whatever reason. Therefore by your immoral reasoning, the law stating that you shouldn't mug old ladies "isn't binding", because the law was not enforced in your case. Laughable point of view.

 

Originally Posted by Totenkopf:

In the world of politics, that means nations can revert to bilateral or multilateral agreements to conduct their business in an acceptable fashion. Just because a law isn't (yet?) international in scope doesn't make it inherently immoral.

Actually it does. Because unless a law is applied universally, i.e: We apply the same legal standards to ourselves as we do to others, that law cannot be moral, and is therefore unacceptable to any moral man.

 

Originally Posted by Totenkopf:

"Does Saddam deserve to die? Well as a brutal dictator if ANYONE deserves death, he does." That's about resounding an approval as good riddance to bad rubbish.

Nooope. Stating that "if you consider the death penalty to be valid, Saddam would qualify to receive it as a most extreme criminal" doesn't compare to saying "It's good that we're rid of Saddam."

 

Originally Posted by Totenkopf:

On 9/11, I overheard someone say "I'm surprised it took them that long to think of that". That could be twisted in a manner of ways. Not having any aural cues, I could view that as simply as an acknowledgement that nobody'd thought of that before. I could also take it as a somewhat contemptuous approval of someone's action, with the implication that someone finally figured it out and did it, and about bloody time.

You couldn't possibly think that unless you were a rabid uber-patriot who was out looking for some "commies" to beat up. The statement you describe is quite simple and self-contained. It is quite literally "I am surprised that terrorist groups have not thought of using passenger jets as projectiles before now". Can't be twisted any other way without significal effort and bendy-logic.

 

Originally Posted by Totenkopf:

So, does that comment celebrate anything? That's merely, like yours, a SUBJECTIVE call.

Nothing subjective about it. You stated that it was good that we were rid of Saddam, and that you would have no problem performing the execution yourself. Try and squeeze out of it as much as you wish, it's all there in the proverbial black and white.

 

Originally Posted by Totenkopf:

I, at least. realized that we're not going to agree and offereded an out. You obviously were too proud to accept it. It's a debating forum, yes, but it's not just our forum. If you feel that you must drag this out, then pm me instead. Otherwise, I guess you must view this forum as a form of performance art and you insecurely need an audience for whom to perform.

If we were to conduct all our debates by PM, there would be little purpose to having the Senate at all. Isn't that right?

 

As for "offering an out", I don't particularly want an "out". I don't engage in debates to achieve "agreement". The real purpose of debate is to divine the truth, by applying logic to complex questions, and entertaining the logical critique of others, thus forging a truism in the fire of logical argument. My arguments are (in my opinion) currently the most well-founded in logic, and as such I feel no need to abandon them and high-tail it out of here.

[Mace MacLeod]

The reason I dismiss the UN as just another mordibund entity is that it doesn't take but one SC veto to sidline it's actions. Had the rep from the USSR not been "missing" in 1950, you'd probably contend that the US "invasion" of Korea would've been illegal and immoral b/c the UN hadn't signed off on it. And more people died there in 3 years than in Iraq. The UN is just the face behind which the major political powers do their business. It has no ability to enforce anything. If your government/qwuasi-governmental body lacks the power to enforce the laws it proclaims, why should anyone feel bound by any law they don't personally disagree with? In the world of politics, that means nations can revert to bilateral or multilateral agreements to conduct their business in an acceptable fashion. Just because a law isn't (yet?) international in scope doesn't make it inherently immoral.

Korean War? Actually started by North Korea invading the South, not by the US just deciding one day to blow things up. There's a very large distinction responding to an attack and initiating one.

 

As for the rest of that paragraph, then why even bother have anything like the UN at all? Let's just turn the whole world over to whoever's strong enough to take it then. Screw Iraq, Lebanon, Darfur, Tibet and anywhere else. What's the point of even having international law if nations just ignore it and that's okay? War, famine, genocide, hey, who cares?

 

Answer: beause we're not in the Dark Ages anymore, we're actually trying to build a world where places like Nazi Germany can't happen, and one single country can't just arbitrarily decide to start wars to make themselves feel tough or to distract their citizens from not being able to find someone who really did attack them first. This is what separates civilization from barbarity.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

I view sovereignty and international law the way I view personal freedom and national laws.

 

Totenkopf is a free citizen, yet has to follow his nation's laws. He doesn't have the right to steal, rape, or take the law into his own hands. Likewise, the USA is a sovereign and free State, yet it has to abide by International Law. It doesn't have the right to break International Law by, for example, using White Phosphorous or invading sovereign nations.

 

Same thing. Freedom and sovereignty does not equal immunity in the face of the Law.

 

There is just such an organ: The War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague, as I mentioned. Like I also mentioned, the US doesn't support it due to the above and various other shenanigans which under international law would quite rightfully see ol' Dubya and the rest of his pedigree chums front and center.

I know about the Hague court. My complaint is that, as you said, it's not capable of punishing every offender. It's like a pedophile watching child porn - he has very high chances of getting away with what he's doing, so he does it.

[Totenkopf]

Think, there's the rub, ET. If someone doesn't think that what you think is moral, are they then morally bound to accept your decisions and conclusions? If 2 competing moral codes differ, both appyling absolutes differently, who decides which code is right? Using the concept of empathy, one derives a sort of moral absolute code that may conflict with someone elses. Just because something is legal doesn't necessarily make it moral and vice versa. Who, then, is the arbiter of what's moral? My point is that that if 2 people don't agree on the morality of the law, is the law immoral or just the people themselves?

 

The idea that the impramateur of an ineffective, corrupt and arguably immoral body like the UN being necessary to morally legitimize anything is laughable and almost insane or silly in its own right. Besides, do you really believe that any country actually cares about UN approval, except maybe as a propoganda point, if they're going to attack another?

 

Killing saddam won't make him a martyr, he's pretty much assured that. It may get him added to a particular groups list of grievances, but that's really all. Face it, life is not SOOO sacred that someone can't forfeit their right to it. Mind you, I'm NOT saying life is of no value either. I just don't buy into the concept that capital punishment is immoral or wrong.

[Nancy Allen``]

I don't think it's in any doubt that by going to war for spurious reasons, our governments did indeed "set out to kill innocent people". And since they had no altruistic reason for invading Iraq (obviously no WMDs, and look at all the wonderful things that have happened to the Iraqis now that bad old Saddam is gone) it must be concluded that our governments went into Iraq in order to install a more sympathetic puppet regime in place of Saddam. So yes, they also went in to the country "for themselves".

 

Did they bomb the cities knowing they would kill the people there? I know Baghdad was bombed, but the city was evacuated. Every soldier who set out to kill innocents and everyone who ordered them to up the chain of command deserves the same punishment as Saddam.

 

As for how bad things are for the Iraqis, no question times are tough there. I think however both pictures arn't accurately portrayed, in so far as seebees helping to rebuild and American soldiers helping out the Iraqis.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

The idea that the impramateur of an ineffective, corrupt and arguably immoral body like the UN being necessary to morally legitimize anything is laughable and almost insane or silly in its own right.

So... If I, as a free citizen in the Detroit slums, say, regard the local police unit to be both corrupt and inefficient to the point of lunacy, is it OK for me to break into other peoples' houses? Does the law about breaking and entering become void just because the people who are supposed to enforce it are?

 

Besides, do you really believe that any country actually cares about UN approval, except maybe as a propoganda point, if they're going to attack another?

Two wrongs don't make a right. If no one else in my Detroit slums care about the laws either, does that mean I can break them as much as I want, too? "Everyone else does it, so it's OK"?

[ET Warrior]

Think, there's the rub, ET. If someone doesn't think that what you think is moral, are they then morally bound to accept your decisions and conclusions?

I am actually not particularly clear what part of my post you are responding to here...I originally said

It has nothing to do with what individuals THINK is moral or not, but rather what actually is or is not moral.

[Totenkopf]

Well, ET, we arrive at conclusions about what's moral or not through the thought process, no? If you think up a moral code that conflicts with a moral code thought up by another, then there is ultimately confusion as to which one is right. By what authority does either one assert the superiority of their code over the others?

 

----------------------------------------

Which is it, Spider? Amorality or immorality? Or are you using those terms interchangabley? You can rail on the your "nemesis" all you like, just be consistent when you describe them. I already know you don't mind killing (at least not terribly) people you think who've killed immorally, but what about those who have been amoral in their choices ("The fact that I calmly recognise their amorality..."). Perhaps I was mistaken in thinking that you believed immoral the actions taken by "our governemnt leaders" re Iraq.

 

Frankly, I stand by my assertion you don't read too well. You are quite accomplished at parsing and taking things out of context, though. Not to mention willful mischaracterization and perhaps flights of fancy. You obviously didn't notice a number of things. First, I rephrased the whole issue about you and the death penalty as a concept. I did not assert after that post that you were against the death penalty CONCEPTUALLY, merely against the execution of Saddam. I further pointed out that I recognized your opposition was based NOT on the idea of cp but the method at which his sentence was arrived. You intentionally confused my meaning, but nothing new there. You can scream wrong to the high heavens all you like, but you are morally opposed to the execution of SH b/c you don't like it b/c you think it's unfair and believe that immoral (or is that amoral, now) leaders should join him on the gallows (b/c it just ain't fair that he hang alone, why that'd be hypocritical). Your denying this has all the credibility of a wife beater professing about how he respects his spouse. So, once again in order for it to sink into your thick skull, I got your difference between the concept and it's current application in Iraq. Get over it already.

 

I've already dealt with your protestations about hypocrisy. Perhaps you should consult the dictionary if you don't understand what I typed. As you said, that's your problem. If you're half as smart as you believe, then you'll notice that incredulity was actually an apt choice. Frankly, your comments about "celebration" are drivel and self serving to boot. Little more than an obvious attempt to imply you're morally superior to others.

 

"And furthermore, international law is necessary if we are to behave morally as nations. Law has to be universally applied, or it is not moral." The first part of that statement is presumptuous. Second, it could be very fairly concluded that you were saying any law that wasn't applied universally (by all parties to all parties) could not in fact be a moral law. It would not be unfair to conclude that a law that applied in China, but not Japan, could be fairly construed as immoral because NOT ALL people were bound by it. Your initial lack of precision. Still, since you want to play semantic games, though I must say it's good that you addressed your oversight in a following post.

Furthermore, no amount of international law can make anything moral or immoral. If an action, like say Iraqi Freedom, is immoral, would it have become moral or acceptable if the UN had actually endorsed it? If you say yes to this, maybe you should clear clear of DEA agents. The impramateur of the UN or any of it's related bodies doesn't change water into wine (immoral into moral for those having a hard time here).

 

Your complaint about how the government was elected is really no better than saying German elections in post war Germany were unfiar b/c Nazis weren't allowed to run due to prohibitions by the Allies. So, maybe some of the Baathist party were excluded. So what. As to your claims about casualties, have you ever heard the expression....there are 3 kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics. I'm curious as to the motivations of the people who actually arrived at the numbers they did in the absence of anything other, apparently, than anecdotal evidence. I mention this because in your litany of offenses you cite 650k as the number of dead. I'll need more proof beyond figures arrived at by a contested methodology. Also, don't try to fall back on the crutch that maybe that # is too high, but does it really matter, it was still a lot of people.

 

Ultimately, you're an internationalist at heart and I'm not. That explains our differences with regard to how we view the moral gravity of a UN/international sanction of any country's actions. Maybe, one day, if the human race becomes completely ethical, I'll reconsider my views.

----------------------

@Mace

Well, I guess there'd have been a problem in 1950 had the Russians actually vetoed the resolution. Afterall, the NKs didn't attack America or any other country that contributed to SK's defense.

[Elijah]

I say we kill him like he used to kill his people... you know, run them feet first through a meat shredder... or chop some limbs off and throw him onto a meat hook to bleed out....

 

Damn

[ET Warrior]

You can scream wrong to the high heavens all you like, but you are morally opposed to the execution of SH b/c you don't like it b/c you think it's unfair and believe that immoral (or is that amoral, now) leaders should join him on the gallows

Actually, even though I'm not Spider AL, I have been reading his posts, and that isn't at all what he has said. Not once. His contention is that the execution of SH is because it was ordered by an illegitimate court and an illegitimate government. Had he been tried and sentenced by a legitimate jury, then I believe AL would find less to be upset about.

 

This doesn't change the fact, however, that our own leaders are STILL guilty of the same crimes SH was convicted of, and it IS hypocrisy to think that SH is getting what he deserves if our own leaders don't also deserve the same.

 

Also, don't try to fall back on the crutch that maybe that # is too high, but does it really matter, it was still a lot of people.

I dont necessarily see what the problem WOULD be if he did fall back on that "crutch", since it WAS still a lot of people. In fact, http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ counts the number of reported civilian deaths in Iraq to be AT MINUMUM 46863 people. These are only corroborated reports of deaths of civilian non-combatants in Iraq. Is 47 thousand people an insignificant number?

[Spider AL]

Originally Posted by Totenkopf:

Well, ET, we arrive at conclusions about what's moral or not through the thought process, no? If you think up a moral code that conflicts with a moral code thought up by another, then there is ultimately confusion as to which one is right. By what authority does either one assert the superiority of their code over the others?

A moral judgement proves its ethical superiority over other judgements by virtue of the fact that it is arrived at more logically than the other judgements. In order to objectively test which of a set of possible judgements is the most moral, one must subject each judgement to careful scrutiny under the microscope of reason.

 

This was all deeply discussed in the recent thread on the thread on moral relativism. I suggest you read it to gain a deeper understanding of this issue.

 

Originally Posted by Totenkopf:

Which is it, Spider? Amorality or immorality? Or are you using those terms interchangabley?

Once again I have the opportunity to educate. I am indeed blessed.

 

Immoral = Not moral. Violating moral principles.

Amoral = Devoid of morality.

 

Armed with this new knowledge, you can now wander back to whichever of my posts you misunderstood and confirm for yourself that I have used the above words in the proper way.

 

Originally Posted by Totenkopf:

You can rail on the your "nemesis" all you like, just be consistent when you describe them. I already know you don't mind killing (at least not terribly) people you think who've killed immorally, but what about those who have been amoral in their choices ("The fact that I calmly recognise their amorality..."). Perhaps I was mistaken in thinking that you believed immoral the actions taken by "our governemnt leaders" re Iraq.

Blessed.

 

Those within our government who were responsible for our invasion of Iraq are indeed amoral people, because they are utterly without moral principles. Their actions are immoral because those actions violate moral principles.

 

I hope this makes it clear for you.

 

Originally Posted by Totenkopf:

Frankly, I stand by my assertion you don't read too well.

Judging by the previous two quotes I have pasted in, perhaps you should be levelling that charge at yourself.

 

Originally Posted by Totenkopf:

You are quite accomplished at parsing and taking things out of context, though. Not to mention willful mischaracterization and perhaps flights of fancy.

Well I thank you for the compliment regarding my ability to parse text. However your three less complimentary charges: Taking things out of context, wilful mischaracterisation and "flights of fancy" would seem to me to be completely without basis in fact. Perhaps instead of merely making allegations, you could provide some examples of exactly where I have taken these "things" out of context, exactly where I have mischaracterised, and exactly where I have engaged in the rather floridly termed "flights of fancy".

 

These pieces of damning evidence would be greatly helpful to me in my... quest for self-improvement. And thus, I doubt you'll be enclined to provide them.

 

Originally Posted by Totenkopf:

You obviously didn't notice a number of things. First, I rephrased the whole issue about you and the death penalty as a concept. I did not assert after that post that you were against the death penalty CONCEPTUALLY, merely against the execution of Saddam.

And once again you are inaccurate. I am not against "the execution of Saddam". I have stated many times that in principle, I am not certain that executing a criminal of Saddam's calibre would be immoral.

 

Perhaps you're trying to say something different? The only thing I am against is the sentencing of Saddam by the illegal and immoral court, appointed by the puppet regime which currently passes for an "Iraqi Government". And I've made that clear.

 

Originally Posted by Totenkopf:

I further pointed out that I recognized your opposition was based NOT on the idea of cp but the method at which his sentence was arrived. You intentionally confused my meaning, but nothing new there.

I'm not confusing the meaning of the words you're typing. Perhaps, instead, you are confused while you're typing.

 

I am not opposed to Saddam being executed. You're mistaken.

 

Originally Posted by Totenkopf:

You can scream wrong to the high heavens all you like, but you are morally opposed to the execution of SH

Nope!

 

Originally Posted by Totenkopf:

b/c you don't like it

On the contrary, I don't particularly dislike the idea of Saddam being executed.

 

Originally Posted by Totenkopf:

b/c you think it's unfair

I think I've made it clear that I believe the execution of major war criminals to be fairly fair.

 

Originally Posted by Totenkopf:

and believe that immoral (or is that amoral, now) leaders should join him on the gallows (b/c it just ain't fair that he hang alone, why that'd be hypocritical).

I never typed anything about people "joining" other people "on the gallows". I said if YOU BELIEVE that Saddam should hang for his war crimes but do not believe that our leaders should face the same penalty for THEIR war crimes, you're a hypocrite. And since you've failed to answer this question many many times, I am starting to dimly guess that you're afraid of what the answer you give would say about you.

 

However, if you're trying to say that I, Spider AL, believe that war criminals should face one universally applied punishment for comparable war crimes under international law, no matter WHAT nation they come from, then absolutely I do believe that.

 

Originally Posted by Totenkopf:

Your denying this has all the credibility of a wife beater professing about how he respects his spouse. So, once again in order for it to sink into your thick skull, I got your difference between the concept and it's current application in Iraq. Get over it already.

Perhaps you've gone insane. Yes, that must be it. "Wife beater"...

 

Originally Posted by Totenkopf:

I've already dealt with your protestations about hypocrisy. Perhaps you should consult the dictionary if you don't understand what I typed. As you said, that's your problem.

The question is: Do YOU understand the things you type? Your lack of clarity is not my problem.

 

And you've "dealt" with precious little in this thread Tot. You've ignored many questions, wheeled out the odd neo-con fallacy... Made many personal, insulting remarks... Can't really think of anything else you've done here.

 

Originally Posted by Totenkopf:

If you're half as smart as you believe, then you'll notice that incredulity was actually an apt choice.

Incredulity:

1. the quality or state of being incredulous; inability or unwillingness to believe.

—Synonyms disbelief, skepticism, doubt.

2. The state or quality of being incredulous; disbelief.

3. doubt about the truth of something [syn: disbelief, skepticism, mental rejection]

 

Now are you SURE this is what you wanted to accuse me of? Not believing you? Being skeptical? Wierd.

 

Originally Posted by Totenkopf:

Frankly, your comments about "celebration" are drivel and self serving to boot. Little more than an obvious attempt to imply you're morally superior to others.

Well, the only reason I'd be morally superior to others was if they held some... Oh... I don't know... hypocritical stance on the punishment of war criminals?

 

And celebration of Saddam's sentence goes on. You can see it in the more recent posts in this thread, as well as your early ones.

 

Originally Posted by Totenkopf:

"And furthermore, international law is necessary if we are to behave morally as nations. Law has to be universally applied, or it is not moral." The first part of that statement is presumptuous. Second, it could be very fairly concluded that you were saying any law that wasn't applied universally (by all parties to all parties) could not in fact be a moral law. It would not be unfair to conclude that a law that applied in China, but not Japan, could be fairly construed as immoral because NOT ALL people were bound by it.

It is you that is attempting to correct one of your own oversights in this paragraph, Tot.

 

You said: "If every nation has a law that YOU think is immoral, but it's still universally applied, then it's apparently moral b/c you claim for a law to be moral it has to be applied across the board."

 

Which was clearly idiotic. You mistook the basic moral concept: "A law that is not applied universally CANNOT be moral" for the ludicrous "any law which is applied universally IS moral". You were clearly off-base, and I showed that this was so. Now you're trying to revise your position to match my own- morally correct- stance on the matter, that any law which is NOT universally applied, cannot by definition be moral. I marvel at your gall, but must point out the blatant fudge on your part.

 

Originally Posted by Totenkopf:

Furthermore, no amount of international law can make anything moral or immoral. If an action, like say Iraqi Freedom, is immoral, would it have become moral or acceptable if the UN had actually endorsed it? If you say yes to this, maybe you should clear clear of DEA agents. The impramateur of the UN or any of it's related bodies doesn't change water into wine (immoral into moral for those having a hard time here).

Once again your reasoning process seems to be skipping a few crucial "lines of code". An action like our current invasion of Iraq (Iraqi freedom, hahahahahaaaaaa.) is immoral. If it was (by some freak occurance of bribery and/or intimidation) endorsed by the UN, it would still be immoral. But UNLESS it was endorsed by the UN, it COULD NEVER BE MORAL. Do you see the distinction? No? well don't worry. I won't give up on you Tot. We don't leave our people behind!!!!111

 

Originally Posted by Totenkopf:

Your complaint about how the government was elected is really no better than saying German elections in post war Germany were unfiar b/c Nazis weren't allowed to run due to prohibitions by the Allies. So, maybe some of the Baathist party were excluded. So what.

The difference is that the whole invasion of Germany was carried out specifically to depose the government of the time, WHATEVER the will of the German people was in the matter.

 

Whereas Bushie's handlers spun the Iraq invasion a different way. After they realised that the WMD falsehood wasn't going to stand up anymore, they said the invasion was to bring democracy to an oppressed people. (Illegal regime-change objective) If you want to bring democracy to a people, you must stand back and abide by their majority decision. The US didn't do that, it vetted the candidate list, and so the election and the result were by definition undemocratic. So our governments went to war under false pretences, twice over. So the invasion was and is immoral by any definition of the word. As well as illegal.

 

Originally Posted by Totenkopf:

expression....there are 3 kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics. I'm curious as to the motivations of the people who actually arrived at the numbers they did in the absence of anything other, apparently, than anecdotal evidence. I mention this because in your litany of offenses you cite 650k as the number of dead. I'll need more proof beyond figures arrived at by a contested methodology. Also, don't try to fall back on the crutch that maybe that # is too high, but does it really matter, it was still a lot of people.

The British medical journal "The Lancet", one of the most respected such journals in the world, published the study, by Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, a US uni.

 

The reason I consistently refer to THIS study, is because of two simple reasons:

 

1. It does not just seek to put a number on people directly shot in the head by our forces (the study suggests around 31% of the deaths projected), but also those whose life expectancy has been reduced by our invasion through secondary effects. Like loss of public safety, lack of clean water, etcetera. This makes it a more complete picture of our negative effect on the people of Iraq.

2. Because we are the aggressors in this matter, we in the western nations have a moral duty to accept as a working fact the HEAVIEST, MOST DAMNING estimate of our fatal effect on the people of the nation we have invaded, provided that the estimate is based on some hard facts, and scientific method. This study qualifies.

 

Sure, the methodology is disputed, but frankly all but the most conservative estimates have been disputed since the conflict began, and that's to be expected. Nobody wants to hear about the people we've killed. All over the news we have reports of American and British servicemen being killed. I don't want to hear about that. I want to hear about civilian deaths. Soldiers sign on the dotted line to die in the service of their (corrupt) governments. Civilians on the other hand, have no say whatsoever in whether their poverty-stricken enclave gets invaded by a bunch of ignorant, trigger-happy G.Is.

 

As for your "falling back on the crutch" that "maybe that number is too high", I worry that it's not high enough. And frankly, trying to cover that base in advance just smacks of you falling back on your own crutch, because you fear the response in question. You have nothing to fear on this score, because I have no interest in that response.

 

Originally Posted by Totenkopf:

Ultimately, you're an internationalist at heart and I'm not. That explains our differences with regard to how we view the moral gravity of a UN/international sanction of any country's actions. Maybe, one day, if the human race becomes completely ethical, I'll reconsider my views.

Ultimately, this thread and your antics within it have exposed many differences between "Spider and Tot". Many glaring differences. But the most prominent difference is that I am a moralist. I try to apply more stringent standards to my nation than to my "enemies" abroad.

 

You on the other hand seem satisfied to apply a very lax, laissez-faire standard to US foreign policy, while simultaneously lauding the immoral sentencing of one of your nation's favourite bogeymen, Saddam "Now where did I put those WMDS" Hussein.

 

I've been asking you whether you were a hypocrite all the way through this thread. You don't have to answer. You really don't. Your opinions answer for you.

 

-

 

Originally Posted by Elijah:

I say we kill him like he used to kill his people... you know, run them feet first through a meat shredder... or chop some limbs off and throw him onto a meat hook to bleed out....

But would you favour that punishment for our own leaders? If not...

 

 

-

 

 

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``:

Did they bomb the cities knowing they would kill the people there? I know Baghdad was bombed, but the city was evacuated. Every soldier who set out to kill innocents and everyone who ordered them to up the chain of command deserves the same punishment as Saddam.

Sorry Nancy, but I must point out that if a country decides to invade another country, THEY KNOW there will be civilian casualties. Despite all the US government propaganda concerning the wonderful accuracy of all their space-age toys like laser-guided smart bombs... The bombs go astray. Civilians will die. It's inevitable. There has never been an invasion of a nation in which civilians weren't caught in the middle.

 

Now, presuming that Bush's handlers aren't complete buffoons with the IQ of a steamed radish, they were aware of this simple fact before ordering the invasion. So YES, they did intentionally invade, KNOWING there would be a vast cost in Iraqi civilian lives. So I guess they deserve the same punishment as Saddam, whatever that punishment might be in the end.

[Nancy Allen``]

The diffirence however is intent. Did they intend to kill the people of Iraq to take it over, or simply to remove Saddam from power and give the country back to the Iraqis?

 

Just on that I had a thought about Iraq, or basically people who protest against something like defending the Evil Empire from the Nazis in World War Two. Why don't anti war protesters say anything about the savagery of Saddam's actions, from his torture of dissidents to the gassing of the Kurds and Shi'ites to the invasion of Kuwait? I think the answer is because they're not involved. However because our troops are deployed over there they kick up such a fuss, not because of anything to do with Iraq, but because we are involved and their interests whether they be personal, political, whatever are involved.

[Spider AL]

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``:

The diffirence however is intent. Did they intend to kill the people of Iraq to take it over, or simply to remove Saddam from power and give the country back to the Iraqis?

Well I think we've already established that our governments' motives cannot have been altruistic, Nancy. Read back over the thread and you'll see that it's been well discussed. So having established (by the words and behaviour of our governments) that we did not invade to "help" the Iraqi people, we are forced to accept that our governments' motives for going to war were merely to further their political and financial concerns in the region.

 

Reluctantly, mind you. I take no pleasure in the amorality of those who rule us. I would rather discover through the application of logic that our rulers are all moral people who care for others and are more concerned with peace and law and justice than lining the pockets of big business.

 

But it just ain't so.

 

So by definition, our invasion of Iraq was a war crime, and its architects deserve to be punished as war-criminals.

 

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``:

Why don't anti war protesters say anything about the savagery of Saddam's actions, from his torture of dissidents to the gassing of the Kurds and Shi'ites to the invasion of Kuwait? I think the answer is because they're not involved. However because our troops are deployed over there they kick up such a fuss, not because of anything to do with Iraq, but because we are involved and their interests whether they be personal, political, whatever are involved.

The answer to your question isn't the one you suggest. The true answer is "Anti war people DO say a LOT about Saddam's actions. But we often say MORE about the immoral actions of our own countries." Why? Because everyone knows Saddam's an evil dictator. Because it's plastered all over the news every five minutes. You don't need me to tell you that Saddam's a despot who is guilty of war crimes. You know that already.

 

You DO need to hear that our own leaders are just as guilty of war crimes. Possibly far greater war crimes. You DO need to be reminded that WE FUNDED SADDAM. Why do you need to hear this? Because nobody but "anti war protesters" will SAY IT. You won't hear these things in the mainstream media. You won't hear truly moral, reasoned arguments from anywhere else, but the lips of the more intelligent "anti war protesters".

[Nancy Allen``]

Does the government have death camps and gas chambers as well?

[Spider AL]

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``:

Does the government have death camps and gas chambers as well?

Saddam didn't have "gas chambers" Nancy, that's a neo-con myth that did the rounds some years ago, designed to make Saddam look more like Hitler. And what the neo-cons are now referring to as "death camps" were brutal, but were prison camps. Which is not to say that a great many prisoners weren't taken elsewhere and executed, but it's not quite on a par with say Belzec or Auschwitz. You see now why you need "anti war protesters" to give you the real scoop? Because what you read elsewhere, what you hear... it's not factual.

 

Let's not forget his real crimes though: He dropped gas bombs on Kurdish cities in 1988, and in addition to this his mass executions brought the Kurdish death toll to around 180,000.

 

Now, we helped to finance all these atrocities. We were funding the man because he was our ally against Iran. We were arming and supplying his regime. So as well as our OWN atrocities, we have partial responsibility for his atrocities too!

 

Now can you read these things and still honestly tell me that our governments are morally superior to Saddam's regime? That our invasion of Iraq was "moral"? Honestly?

[Nancy Allen``]

In no way do I want to lessen the crimes America is responsible for. However I have not one person who opposes war in Iraq talk about Saddam's crimes, not one. There isn't one who has said to me anything about the suffering the Iraqi people have gone through, or the Kurds or Shi'ites. No it's all 'BUSH IS HITLER AND IF YOU SUPPORT HIM IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM YOU WILL BE CAST OFF INTO THE LAKE OF FIRE!!!' Don't forget that it's the same story for Afghanistan, using your logic that would mean America deserved September 11. The same for Iran and their wish to destroy Israel, because we supported them to fight the Soviets would Israeli blood be on our hands were they to be wiped out like Iran have said they wanted?

[Mace MacLeod]

^^^Uh, yeah, there are actually at least two people in this very thread who oppose the Iraqi War and talk quite plainly about Saddam's crimes; myself and AL, for starters.

 

The point is, if the US is doing the same things as Saddam, then Bush is no better than him. Remember, Abu Grahib was only a shocking scandal in the US. In Iraq or other muslim countries, people hardly raised an eyebrow. Why? Because they knew the US had been doing stuff like that all along. They were never under any illusions about the US being the "Good Guys".

[Spider AL]

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``:

In no way do I want to lessen the crimes America is responsible for. However I have not one person who opposes war in Iraq talk about Saddam's crimes, not one. There isn't one who has said to me anything about the suffering the Iraqi people have gone through, or the Kurds or Shi'ites.

As Mace just said, you've seen at least two such people in this thread alone. Please try to be factual.

 

And as I said earlier, it may be true that people like myself who oppose the invasion of Iraq and afghanistan speak more about the crimes of our own governments than about the crimes of foreign government. Not all the time to the exclusion of all else, but MORE. But this is because you already know all about how evil the foreigners are, because your media tells you so.

 

We're spending a lot of our breath saying things you DON'T hear. Like the facts.

 

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``:

it's all 'BUSH IS HITLER AND IF YOU SUPPORT HIM IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM YOU WILL BE CAST OFF INTO THE LAKE OF FIRE!!!'

That's just foolish. Don't be foolish. Try to use some logic.

 

Originally Posted by Nancy Allen``:

Don't forget that it's the same story for Afghanistan, using your logic that would mean America deserved September 11.

 

Ah, you don't seem to understand "our logic". Our logic is that immoral acts (like the events of september the 11th) are not permissible in a civilised world, whether WE commit them, or whether Saddam "I know I left those WMDs around here somewhere" Hussein commits them. And besides, the perpetrators of September the 11th were in the main from Saudi Arabia, not Afghanistan.

[Mace MacLeod]

And besides, the perpetrators of September the 11th were in the main from Saudi Arabia, not Afghanistan.

Funny how people always forget that. Almost makes you wonder why Saudi Arabia was never on the list of candidates for US-backed "Regime Change".

[ET Warrior]

However I have not one person who opposes war in Iraq talk about Saddam's crimes, not one.

Do we really need to? I mean, that's sort of like me going off on a rant about how Adolf Hitler was guilty of crimes against humanity, or an in-depth discussion about how eating human babies is morally reprehensible. Everyone knows these things, why is it pertinent to discuss? The only reason I can see to discuss it is if somebody were to come in professing the good that SH has done, and how he wasn't actually guilty of the crimes he is accused of. Then one should step in and correct them.