Saddam executed - what now for Iraq?

[Nancy Allen``]

With Saddam Hussein put to death by hanging one wonders where Iraq goes from here? Could peace be brought now that the tyrant had been done away with? Will he be seen as a myrter and fresh waves of violence spread throughout the country and the Middle East? Going by recent news the answer could very well be the latter, as 73 I think it was had been killed in retalliation to Saddam's execution, but I would like to hear your thoughts.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

I don't see how this'll improve Iraq's situation whatsoever. It'll raise the morale of some, lower that of others, and infuriate many. But one thing it'll not do is bring peace to Iraq.

 

I won't discuss whether or not the hanging of Saddam Hussein was acceptable, as a thread already exists covering this subject.

[igyman]

I completely agree, this will not mean improvement of Iraq's situation. It just means more of Bush's control over Iraq.

[Char Ell]

I don't think Saddam's execution did anything to promote peace in Iraq. And the timing of the execution probably couldn't have been much worse with the Islamic holiday period and all. Sounds like Shiite's interpreted Saddam's execution as a wonderful thing while the Sunni's see it as a slap in their face and another reminder that Sunni's no longer exercise complete control in Iraqi affairs.

It just means more of Bush's control over Iraq.

Care to explain your reasoning for making this statement or are you just mindlessly Bush-bashing again? I understand you really don't like George W. but I really don't see how the execution of Saddam Hussein increases Bush's ability to "control" Iraq, as if he has much control to begin with. If anything Saddam's execution will only destabilize Iraq further which I'm pretty sure Bush doesn't want.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Finally I can get a good night's sleep. I would stay awake for hours wondering if that animal would escape and murder me and the rest of my family. And I bet every single Iraqi in the world feels the same way.

[TK-8252]

It just means more of Bush's control over Iraq.

 

Bush didn't order his execution. The hanging was an Iraqi thing. And if you think Bush has control of Iraq, let alone control of anything (certainly not Congress anymore! ), that's not the case.

[Windu Chi]

With Saddam Hussein put to death by hanging one wonders where Iraq goes from here? Could peace be brought now that the tyrant had been done away with? Will he be seen as a myrter and fresh waves of violence spread throughout the country and the Middle East? Going by recent news the answer could very well be the latter, as 73 I think it was had been killed in retalliation to Saddam's execution, but I would like to hear your thoughts.

I think he would be seen as a martyr, and a new level of hell will break loose in Iraq.

I saw that video from what CNN showed, it looked like common people off the street hanged his ass.

It already looks like a disguise genocide is in progress, I don't think it will get any better there,

Nancy.

I'm not very optimistic about the situation there.

[Totenkopf]

Fact is, SH would have been executed as long as it was up to the Iraqis themselves. No new government in Iraq would've had enough Sunni members to avoid that fate. Frankly, since the UN did nothing (except possibly profit) about SH, there is no reason that anything like the WC should have had influence or jurisdiction over how Saddam's case was disposed.

 

Seems to me that a lot of the people who fear Iraq's descent into anarchy ought to step up and volunteer to help stabilize the situation. Might it cost them their lives to do so? Probably. It would mean more, though, than just being meely mouthed and criticizing everything else. Much will depend on how much Iraq is supported, both by the US and the rest of the world. Given it's proximity to Iran and Syria, I think that it could end up somewhat like Lebanon. Iran is ultimately the key. If Iran can be kept under control, then much funding for the terrorist element in Iraq can be choked off sufficiently to achieve something with a better shot at being lasting. [Of course, SA would have to knuckle under too, as it is a source of copious funding to terror groups, no doubt partly as a kind of payoff to leave SA alone] That however, would require greater cooperation on the parts of Russia (whose supplying nuke help to Iran) and the PRC. Neither appears predisposed to do anything constructive.

[TK-8252]

I do find it odd how many people now say that if only pesky Iran would get out of the way then Iraq would be fine. As if somehow Iran is the true problem with Iraq, and that it's not that the Iraqis just hate each other for their ethnic differences. Kind of like how when the Sunni insurgents were the problem, everyone said that they're just Saddam loyalists that will be crushed as soon as Saddam is gone.

 

Why is it that it's always some other party's fault that Iraq is a mess, and not ours, or the Iraqis? It's either Iran, Syria, Saddam, whatever. The truth is that it's both our fault and the Iraqis fault. These sectarian tensions already existed - Sunnis hated Shi'ites, and that's how its always been there. Bush and the majority of the U.S. government was so ignorant of other cultures that they didn't even know what the differences are between Shi'a and Sunni Muslims. We invaded and took out the system that was in place to keep order. Now, they're cutting each other's throats. Iran has nothing to do with it. Syria has nothing to do with it. Saddam has nothing to do with it. This is a religious war between two rival sects, allowed to take place due to our invasion.

 

Don't blame other nations for the situation in Iraq. We can only blame ourselves and the Iraqis. I have yet to see any evidence that other nations are behind the violence in Iraq.

[Totenkopf]

Seriously, TK, if you think there are no outside influences (beyond the US and UK), then you are extremely naive. You do understand that it's in the best interests of nations like Iran and Syria that Iraq dissolves completely into failure (at least from their perspective)? Perhaps you should do more research. The middle east is drowning in despotism and the despots are in no hurry to see that change, at almost any cost it seems.

[TK-8252]

Seriously, TK, if you think there are no outside influences (beyond the US and UK), then you are extremely naive. You do understand that it's in the best interests of nations like Iran and Syria that Iraq dissolves completely into failure (at least from their perspective)? Perhaps you should do more research. The middle east is drowning in despotism and the despots are in no hurry to see that change, at almost any cost it seems.

 

Yes, it is very much in the interest of Iran to see the U.S. bleed in Iraq, and a Shi'a-dominated Islamic government emerge. Both of these things are happening. But all this talk I hear of "Iranian agents" and such seems to be nonsense. It's likely that Iran contributes to the political strife in Iraq. However, to think that Iran is behind the VIOLENCE in Iraq is what is truely naive. Know the history of that region - Shi'ite Muslims and Sunni Muslims have always been enemies in Iraq. The true people behind the violence in Iraq are the Imams. People like al-Sadr. They are the ones encouraging young men to abduct, torture, and kill people based on their ethnic differences. No Iranian agents required.

[Totenkopf]

It's not a question of needing Iranian agents to fan the flames. More like Iranians making sure the supply of gasoline for the fire remains steady. The rest is a given. So long as rich and ambitious power brokers like the Iranians feed the flames, they won't die down any time soon. That's the point in mentioning such connections.

[TK-8252]

It's not a question of needing Iranian agents to fan the flames. More like Iranians making sure the supply of gasoline for the fire remains steady. The rest is a given. So long as rich and ambitious power brokers like the Iranians feed the flames, they won't die down any time soon. That's the point in mentioning such connections.

 

So then what's the solution? Attack Iran? That'd really stabilize the region!

[Totenkopf]

Compared to what? Doing nothing and holding your breath?

[Samnmax221]

So then what's the solution? Attack Iran? That'd really stabilize the region!

Wouldn't need to, Ahmadinejad is about as popular over there, as Bush is here. He's on his way out.

[TK-8252]

Compared to what? Doing nothing and holding your breath?

 

Okay then tell us why we should attack Iran then. Tell us why the U.S. has the authority to attack another country without provocation. Tell us what act Iran has committed that would justify an attack, and the ensuing chaos, destruction, and death that would follow.

 

Wouldn't need to, Ahmadinejad is about as popular over there, as Bush is here. He's on his way out.

 

Exactly. The Iranians aren't so happy about the fact that they're living in poverty while their leader tries to take on the world. Thankfully, Iran IS a democratic, or at least semi-democratic society. Attacking them would be absolute insanity. The sanctions that are in place are working, as we saw from the elections that recently took place in Iran. People in Iran don't like the trouble that Ahmadinejad is getting them into.

[Totenkopf]

Whoa there big fella, you're getting ahead of yourself. I say that the OPTION should not be taken off the table. Not the same thing as saying....."Charge, damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" Technically, the USSR was a democratic society. Only problem was that all candidates were CPSU members. Iran bears serious scrutiny.

[Nancy Allen``]

Give TK an A for his accurate insight into Iraq, Iran and the Middle East. If Ahmadinejad is holding talks with America then the hope is there to bring about democracy. On the other hand Iran has appeared hell bent on the genocide of the Jews, so certainly if we are to uphold Israel's right to exist then Iran has to be watched carefully. I would like to add, war opposers, that from all appearences Saddam largely kept the Shi'ites and Sunnis under control. With him gone it's open slather, they have free reign to try and wipe each other out.

 

My thoughts on the hanging itself. I'm glad Saddam has been done away with, he deserved it for his attempted genocide of the Kurds, but to celebrate the way some have is rather tasteless. Regardless of what support Iraqis have for it to Saddam loyalists he will die a myrter and they will in all liklihood redouble their efforts to drive out the occupying forces.

[Spider AL]

Originally posted by Nancy Allen``:

With Saddam Hussein put to death by hanging one wonders where Iraq goes from here? Could peace be brought now that the tyrant had been done away with? Will he be seen as a myrter and fresh waves of violence spread throughout the country and the Middle East? Going by recent news the answer could very well be the latter, as 73 I think it was had been killed in retalliation to Saddam's execution, but I would like to hear your thoughts.

The terms of your question aren't really meaningful. The question presumes that the execution of Saddam is a significant event, but while I'm sure it was significant for Saddam, it really wasn't significant for Iraq as a country.

 

Saddam essentially lost any power and influence he ever possessed when the US and UK illegally invaded Iraq. Saddam really hasn't been a concern since his capture. His execution will have no positive effect on Iraq, and every intelligent person agreed that his execution would have no positive effect on Iraq well before he was hanged. It was obvious.

 

So "what now for Iraq?" the same thing as before Saddam was executed. Since it's obvious that the US and UK aren't willing to put the kind of monstrous amounts of cash into Iraq as would be necessary to effect true repair... we should just leave. Our presence is illegal, immoral and in practical terms it's a focus for violence. We should respect Iraqi wishes, and leave. Without putting more of our puppets into power, of course.

 

Originally posted by Nancy Allen``:

On the other hand Iran has appeared hell bent on the genocide of the Jews, so certainly if we are to uphold Israel's right to exist then Iran has to be watched carefully.

Iran doesn't have the capacity to destroy Israel, Nancy. Israel has one of the largest armies in the world, and it's the only country in the region with a (massive) nuclear deterrent.

 

Add continued US/UK backing for Israel into the equation, and you have to come to the conclusion that you're just repeating neo-con propaganda with this "Iran's a danger to Israel" line.

 

-

 

Originally posted by igyman:

I completely agree, this will not mean improvement of Iraq's situation. It just means more of Bush's control over Iraq.

I understand your sentiments Igy, but people both anti-war and pro-war have to stop obsessing over Bush. He's one individual, he is NOT a mastermind by any measure, he is not influencing US policy in any meaningful way, and never has done. Amoral neoconservative policy has been in place since the 1980s in its current form, well before Bushie, and frankly US foreign policy has always been amoral in one way or another.

 

Bush (or any other political figurehead worldwide) is a nobody, he's an irrelevance to any discussion of policy.

 

-

 

Originally posted by jmac7142:

Finally I can get a good night's sleep. I would stay awake for hours wondering if that animal would escape and murder me and the rest of my family. And I bet every single Iraqi in the world feels the same way.

 

Very good.

 

-

 

Originally posted by Totenkopf:

Fact is, SH would have been executed as long as it was up to the Iraqis themselves. No new government in Iraq would've had enough Sunni members to avoid that fate.

1. Saddam was villified on the basis that his actions broke international laws. Therefore the only way to try him for those crimes- morally speaking- would have been in a court sanctioned by the institutions that define international law. If you're in favour of lynch-mobs, fine. But they're not moral.

 

2. The court was not convened by the Iraqi people, it was convened by a US/UK puppet regime that was not democratically elected by any stretch of the imagination. The election of this puppet junta was not democratic, as the US vetted the candidate list. That taints the election, the government and any decisions said government makes.

 

Originally posted by Totenkopf:

Frankly, since the UN did nothing (except possibly profit) about SH, there is no reason that anything like the WC should have had influence or jurisdiction over how Saddam's case was disposed.

1. The UN did what was necessary, it checked that Saddam was not a danger to his neighbors or to us. It emerged that he was neither a danger to his neighbors nor to us, and that he had not possessed any major weaponry since the 1991 conflict. These conclusions were upheld by the US's own report into Iraqi weapons, AFTER the recent invasion.

 

Ref: https://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/index.html

 

2. The US allegations that you're referring to concerning the oil for food programme were never substantiated. It was a clear attempt on the part of the neo-cons to sully the reputation of the high levels of the UN, which were criticising the US and UK for their illegal international aggression against Iraq at the time. And as previously noted, evidence was uncovered by investigative journalists to suggest that whatever oil-smuggling was going on, the US government was knee deep in it.

 

Ref: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/d9d4d8b0-64f6-11d9-9f8b-00000e2511c8.html

 

3. Saddam was armed and funded throughout the nineteen-eighties by the US and UK precisely so that we could profit from his violence and his aggression against our ideological foes. Even IF the allegations of high-level UN profiteering were substantiated, (which they have not been) it's a bit rich for you to complain about someone else using Saddam for their own ends, when the US was doing it for over a decade.

 

Originally posted by Totenkopf:

Seems to me that a lot of the people who fear Iraq's descent into anarchy ought to step up and volunteer to help stabilize the situation. Might it cost them their lives to do so? Probably. It would mean more, though, than just being meely mouthed and criticizing everything else.

The US sanctions against Iraq (and bombings of Iraq) crippled the Iraqi economy and caused untold death and suffering. The US/UK invasion of Iraq has destroyed what little quality of life the Iraqis had left, has totally destabilised a country which was no threat to its neighbors or to us, has caused islamic fundamentalists to gain new power in Iraq (Saddam was a staunch secularist, far more so than many leaders in the region) and of course we have killed over half a million Iraqi people by the most damning estimate.

 

All US/UK damage. So who has responsibility to clean up the mess? We do, of course. The US and the UK. Have we made any serious attempt to clean up the mess? Nope. Some of the US money that was meant to fund reconstruction has been spent on spurious contracts for US businesses, and the rest has been... how shall we put this... misplaced. To the tune of nine billion dollars US.

 

Ref: http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.audit/

Ref: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1403034,00.html

 

And frankly, it would take more than a paltry few billions to rebuild a country in the state that Iraq's in. After all, it took over a decade for us to destroy it.

 

So frankly, I think your assertion that everyone else should chip in more money and manpower than they already are to clean up our mess... is ludicrous in the extreme.

 

As for your anti-Iranian rhetoric, it's nonsense.

 

For one thing, Iranian involvement in Iraq has been overestimated by neoconservatives, according to at least one senior US intelligence official in Iraq. Brigadier General John Custer stated in November on CNN: "If I could snap my fingers and move Iran out of the picture, it wouldn't change -- it wouldn't end the conflict, it wouldn't drastically change the conflict. It's not decisive."

 

Ref: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0611/30/sitroom.02.html

 

And secondly of course, even if Iran WERE the evil empire you like to make them out to be, (which they are not,) it would be our fault if they nefariously gained control of Iraq and used it for EV0L!!!11 (sic) Because we destabilised the country, and anyone with a brain could have predicted the ill effects of that destabilisation.

 

-

 

Originally posted by TK-8252:

These sectarian tensions already existed - Sunnis hated Shi'ites, and that's how its always been there. Bush and the majority of the U.S. government was so ignorant of other cultures that they didn't even know what the differences are between Shi'a and Sunni Muslims. We invaded and took out the system that was in place to keep order.

Indeed TK, these sectarian tensions DID exist prior to our invasion. But they simply weren't as pronounced as the neoconservatives want us to believe. There was intermarriage between Shi'ite and Sunni muslims, there was plenty of interaction between the factions in daily life. Only when we invaded were extremist elements able to take some control of the factions and REALLY start trouble.

 

It's not merely the fact that Saddam did a good job of keeping tensions under wraps, (which he did,) it's that our invasion actively INCREASED tensions, it didn't merely release existing ones. Once again, we have a subtle neo-con dodge, that makes our contribution to Iraq's problems sound smaller than it actually was. Don't let them get away with anything, not even the smallest inaccuracy!

[Nancy Allen``]

Just tell me, does every single one of your posts have to be arrogant and condescending? Because I have not seen one that isn't, not one.

[Jae Onasi]

Sunnis and Shi'a have been fighting for centuries, and it doesn't look like they're terribly interested in stopping soon. It was going on before Saddam and will likely continue for some time.

 

'Iranian agents' isn't quite the right way to look at it. It's 'Shi'a agents who happen to be Iranian' because religion drives politics there as much as, if not more than, nationality. It's natural for Iranian Shi'a to want a neighbor with a similar mindset. If they're stirring up the Iraqi hornet's nest to get it, however, that's a problem.

 

I don't know that all of Iran is bent on the destruction of Israel, even if Ahmadinejad has made his feelings well known. In fact, Ahmadinejad's very vocal stance on the matter (among other issues) is likely what's driving his popularity down. Most Iranians aren't too excited about making active enemies out of their neighbors after what happened in the Iran-Iraq war, nor do they want to take on the world with only Venezuela as their ally.

[Windu Chi]

 

I don't know that all of Iran is bent on the destruction of Israel, even if Ahmadinejad has made his feelings well known. In fact, Ahmadinejad's very vocal stance on the matter (among other issues) is likely what's driving his popularity down. Most Iranians aren't too excited about making active enemies out of their neighbors after what happened in the Iran-Iraq war, nor do they want to take on the world with only Venezuela as their ally.

Don't underestimate people full of hate, Jae.

If they develop a fission bomb, I bet they will try to use it.

But Israel airforce probably will bomb them to dust before they launch it, unless terrorists get a hold of it, in which there will be hell to pay.

Ahmadinejad and some of his allies in Iran, who still doubt the Holocaust, are hell-bent on making Israel a sea of blood.

They can't be trusted, unless the citizens there somehow get rid of the religious Ayatollah government.

[Nancy Allen``]

It's true that Iran was where they held the Holocaust denial conference, that they held a "Holocaust cartoon contest" in reply to the Mohammed cartoons, that through his comments and actions (such as telling America to change it's policies on Israel) it seems Ahmadinejad is hell bent on the genocide of the Jews. It may be neo con, extreme right wing kook, Butcheress of Abu Gharib to criticise Iran and Ahmadinejad over Israel, by the same token I truely hope Jae is correct in her statement that Ahmadinejad is in the minority of how Iran thinks.

[Spider AL]

Originally posted by Nancy Allen``:

Just tell me, does every single one of your posts have to be arrogant and condescending? Because I have not seen one that isn't, not one.

I reject utterly the notion that my posts are arrogant, or condescending. I disagree with you and others on many issues, but that does not make me condescending. I think that many of the ideas expressed by you and your fellows are sheer nonsense, but that does not make me arrogant.

 

I try to present logical argument and factual evidence to show that those arguments I disagree with... are fallacious and wrong. That is not arrogance nor condescension. If you don't like it, that really is your problem, and not mine.

 

However, never let it be said that I'm closed-minded. If you want to go to my first post in this thread, and edit it so that it is no longer what you would call "arrogant", and then PM me the edited version, I will surely look at it carefully and dispassionately evaluate the changes you make.

 

Originally posted by Nancy Allen``:

It's true that Iran was where they held the Holocaust denial conference, that they held a "Holocaust cartoon contest" in reply to the Mohammed cartoons, that through his comments and actions (such as telling America to change it's policies on Israel) it seems Ahmadinejad is hell bent on the genocide of the Jews. It may be neo con, extreme right wing kook, Butcheress of Abu Gharib to criticise Iran and Ahmadinejad over Israel

 

Feel free to criticise the attitude of Iran's government. I'll join you in criticising that. But what you said was different. You stated that we should "watch" Iran, because it posed a genuine threat to Israel's existence. And that's just silly. It's like saying:

 

"we should watch that horse carefully, because it poses a genuine threat to that elephant's existence."

 

In this analogy, the horse is Iran, the elephant is Israel. Iran doesn't have the capacity to rival Israel's military might, which is considerable. Israel is one of the best armed countries on the planet. The Iranian government can bluster all it likes about obliterating Israel... but it simply isn't capable of the act in question, barring some insanely freak occurrance. And it's just parroting neo-con propaganda to suggest otherwise.

 

Of course, the same could be said of Palestine. Israel is in no danger of being obliterated by the Palestinians, no matter how often our governments try to paint the Israel vs. Palestine conflict as an "even match".

 

It so isn't. But I digress...

-

 

Originally posted by Jae Onasi:

Sunnis and Shi'a have been fighting for centuries, and it doesn't look like they're terribly interested in stopping soon. It was going on before Saddam and will likely continue for some time.

There have always been sectarian tensions between Sunni and Shia muslims. That is obvious fact. But the idea that our respective governments encourage us to believe: that Sunni and Shia in Iraq were just itching for the slightest opportunity to kill each other... is not supported by much in the way of hard evidence.

 

For example: when Saddam's Baath regime was weakened during the eighties, Shi'a muslims had several opportunities to start an uprising. And they were encouraged to do so by Iranian Shia propaganda. But the Iraqi Shia were in the main loyal to the Iraqi government under Saddam, and there was no overthrow of the Baathists.

 

No, as stated before, the only reason there is serious sectarian violence in Iraq now, is because we not only OPENED the religious can of worms, we also put extra worms in before opening it! We didn't merely release existing tensions (which would be bad enough), we actively exascerbated them. Our fault, plainly and simply.

 

Originally posted by Jae Onasi:

'Iranian agents' isn't quite the right way to look at it. It's 'Shi'a agents who happen to be Iranian' because religion drives politics there as much as, if not more than, nationality.

Strictly speaking, this statement is grossly incorrect. According to experts, power and money are driving the current Iraqi strife, and religion is merely a convenient excuse.

 

The aforementioned US intelligence chief, Brigadier General Custer, stated in 2005 that concerns of money/power was driving the insurgency. Religious ideology, he said "doesn't feed the kids".

 

He stated further that 95% of those insurgents that US forces had captured or killed were Iraqi Arab Sunnis. He also stated in another interview (as noted in my last post) "If I could snap my fingers and move Iran out of the picture, it wouldn't change -- it wouldn't end the conflict, it wouldn't drastically change the conflict. It's not decisive."

 

So much for the dastardly Iranian Shia influence.

 

Also in June 2005, General John Vines (at the time, a senior commander of coalition forces in Iraq) stated of the Iraqi domestic insurgency: "These insurgents don't have an ideology except violence and power."

 

Robert Fisk often reports from Iraq on the confusion that many normal Iraqi people feel when they're told by westerners that what they're experiencing is a "Sunni/Shia civil war". He notes that prior to our illegal invasion of the nation, Sunni/Shia relations weren't all that bad, considering their divisive religious schism.

 

All in all, it's easy for people to parrot neo-con propaganda on the subject. Because that lets us off the hook. The major problem in Iraq... is us.

 

Whatever way you cut it, whichever way you look at it, it's us. So Saddam's execution? It's an irrelevance. It's a showpiece, as was his illegitimate trial. It just distracts people from the truth.

[Nancy Allen``]

So you say, however people have written to me complaining about the arrogance and condescending tone of your posts. If I can just bring up Atheism for a moment Atheism may be something a lot of people want, even need, and they would benefit greatly from it, yet they are scarred off because of the way some present Atheism. Truth be told only the very best of us can see faults in ourselves.

 

Anyway enough of that. With Iran, the threat had been made, and with Palestine the threat is real and currently exists, not to destroy Israel as Ahmadinejad wants, but to attack Israel, to kill innocent men women and children with no concern for whether or not people from other countries are involved, in Palestine's case with no concern that it is brother killing brother, Jew killing Jew. Do we ignore it?

 

And on topic, I read that on New Years a boy in America watched the execution of Saddam and then imitated him, hanging and killing himself when it went wrong. Surely this would have to be the greatest tragedy of the former Iraqi leader being put to death.