Muqtada, Muqtada, Muqtada

[WinkWink]

Some of the last words Saddam heard, according to the leaked cell phone video, were a chant of "Muqtada, Muqtada, Muqtada," a reference to Muqtada al-Sadr, the radical anti-American Shiite cleric, whose Mahdi Army militia is believed responsible for many killings that have targeted Sunnis and driven many from their homes.

Al-Sadr's father was killed by Saddam. The militant cleric is a key al-Maliki backer (current prime minister).

so it is now apparent the execution was a farce, composed of Hussein's political enemies (as well as current mass killers of Iraqi civilians). If his executioner's were bias, who is to say the judge wasn't either? the prosecutor? the evidence a sham?

Please stick to the topic and don't attack me personally.

The execution was a failure and it brought to the surface a fundamental truth about Iraq...it's more complex than a simple "right and wrong".

And of course, the people the U.S.A is currently training and supplying with weapons using my tax money, they will be our number one enemy in 10-15 years. After all, Hussein was once our 'friend', as was bin Laden.

In conclusion, I now feel Hussein should have never been executed since the trial was a sham.

There is no longer truth in Iraq, too many people manipulated it.

[Oh my god, it's Robby!]

what!
a farce
well, I never....

[WinkWink]

Concerning the person who leaked the cell phone video:

"The committee has no right to say 'Arrest this person or that person'. The decision about a punishment will be made by the prime minister," Askari (Senior Aide to Prime Minister) told Reuters.

---

um...wouldn't that make this another dictatorship (close to it)?

[BoyRacer]

You mean this video: http://www.heaven666.org/full-version-of-saddam-execution-video-4210.php

LOL...they caught the guy who taped it and broadcast it to the world. What do you think will become of him?

BR

[Kuiper]

And of course, the people the U.S.A is currently training and supplying with weapons using my tax money, they will be our number one enemy in 10-15 years. After all, Hussein was once our 'friend', as was bin Laden.

I'm just gonna discuss that topic. Yes, America needs to stop arming countries that can quickly become enemies (or pretty much are already enemies, notably Egypt in my opinion). In a certain situation years ago, yes, it was wiser to side with Iraq than with Iran. Yes, a couple years ago it was wiser to be giving Egypt and Kuwait a lot of aid rather than Iraq or Syria. Now, diplomacy and strategy are too very difficult things to manage properly, and you can't just have America reject every single country on earth that isn't the UK, Japan, and Australia, but the government needs to be a lot more careful about who they freely give high tech missiles and warehouses full of machine guns to when there are many, many people in those countries who are planning to turn the weapons around and fire at us any day now.

[Worm]

WinkWink: Your signature says "If I only knew yesterday, what I know today".

A lot of people knew yesterday what is well known today. I'm surprised you're surprised about this stilted trial.

Kuiper: The issue of who we befriended in the past is of secondary importance. What is of primary importance is that the United States has for several decades enacted exactly the kind of foreign policy you're talking about, realpolitik, while at the same time convincing its citizens that Americans are the guys in white hats fighting for democracy on a savage cowboy frontier. The anger many people feel is not just for the incredible amounts of death and destruction the government has dealt out (under both Democratic and Republican regimes), but also for the immeasurable harm done to our democracy in the process. That the government should side with dictatorships might-- might-- be a regrettable but necessary decision. That the government should make those policy decisions one day and lie about them the next, and in so doing rip out the heart of American civil liberties, ruin the economy, sanction torture, weaken our military, and recklessly sabotage our ability to do good in the future at home and abroad, is an unforgivable crime.

[Kuiper]

The issue of who we befriended in the past is of secondary importance.
I agree. If you want to talk about specific US tactics in Fallujah, it doesn't help to rant about Iraqi-American relations during the Iran-Iraq War (just a random example).

What is of primary importance is that the United States has for several decades enacted exactly the kind of foreign policy you're talking about, realpolitik, while at the same time convincing its citizens that Americans are the guys in white hats fighting for democracy on a savage cowboy frontier.
I am a opponent of realpolitik. I don't compromise on my values and I don't want the government to do so either. I don't want to be all buddy-buddy with a radical Muslim regime or dictatorship or communist state just because it's neighbor has more firepower. But it is better to be utilitarian about getting things done even if you have to smile at people you would rather kick in the eye than to just be isolationist and let all the world's problems boil over.

The anger many people feel is not just for the incredible amounts of death and destruction the government has dealt out (under both Democratic and Republican regimes), but also for the immeasurable harm done to our democracy in the process.
If by "death and destruction dealt out" the offensive military actions done by the US military, then I don't feel any anger. No one likes civilian casualties, no one likes American soldiers dying, no one likes collateral damage, but I have no sympathy for the fall of non-allied governments. "Harm done to our democracy"? That's a touchy thing to get into, but I think it is best discussed/explained based upon the rest of your post below.

That the government should side with dictatorships might-- might-- be a regrettable but necessary decision.
I never said I want America to without exception never ally with less than perfect foreign governments, in fact I defended actions to the opposite. Yes, sometimes you do have to make friends with a bad regime, but it should ONLY be because there is a bigger threat and you absolutely NEED the assistance, or at least the guarantee of them not getting involved, of this would-be enemy. Was Iraq a necessary semi-ally years ago? I'm no expert, but I think so in the face of the threat of Iran.

That the government should make those policy decisions one day and lie about them the next, and in so doing rip out the heart of American civil liberties, ruin the economy, sanction torture, weaken our military, and recklessly sabotage our ability to do good in the future at home and abroad, is an unforgivable crime.
I do not find ignoring the right to "plot terrorist acts without government intervention" unconstitutional. ;) Sure, I don't want my phone tapped, and I don't want to have my free speech taken away, and while there seems to be some suspicious wording in some of these new bills and acts that I would like rewritten, it simply is not at the point where I'm living in the police state. Could I go outside, hold up a gun, and threaten to kill the president (even though I'm all the way out in Chicago)? No, but I never could have at any time in the nation's history. Could I step outside and yell that I hate his guts, want him impeached, and hope he suffers for the rest of his life (basically what Morrissey wished upon Mike Joyce)? Yes, I could, actually.

I do think the war is being horribly mismanaged and way too much money is being wasted on it. The war needs to be led MUCH more aggressively. The thing is, the Islamic Middle East is not a generally peace-loving, friendly culture, especially to the mostly Christian West. While on a day-to-day basis soldiers don't blindly trust anyone, the Bush Administration seems to ridiculously assume that everyone (Jihadists, Communists) will all hold bands in harmony once he's done fighting just one (more like 1/10 of one) of many enemies.

I do not think dunking the head of a murdering terrorist in cold water is torture. America is not doing anything close to torture. Yes, they do unpleasant things to prisoners, yes it is physical, yes it is meant to get information out of them, but there are no digits being cut off, no tongues being pulled out, no drilling teeth without novocaine. And look who they are doing these comparitively mild things to: murderers, REAL torturers, terrorists, etc. I don't give my full support to these things, but neither do I choose to be against it. I don't know anything about torture or the specifics of these acts, but I do know that these prisoners deserve a lot worse and have done a lot worse.

Weaken the military? That is a complicated issue and you could mean anything by that. Clinton cut back the navy, lowered the budget, and retired Army divisions. Is the military stretched too thin? I say no. There are around 2 million people in the military, counting reserves and the National Guard. There are around 150,000 troops in Iraq. Yes that is a very large committment, and if a new war erupted far away it would be difficult to handle, but the Armed Forces are not about to break.

Recklessly sabotage our ability to do good at home and abroad? That is a very vague statement, please clarify.

[WinkWink]

WinkWink: Your signature says "If I only knew yesterday, what I know today".

A lot of people knew yesterday what is well known today. I'm surprised you're surprised about this stilted trial.



that quote has been there since the name was registered. I am not surprised, I'm just surprised the Shiite government was so sloppy in hiding their true motives, agenda...basically 'revealing' the whole trial was a sham. I always thought the trial was unfair and too quick to be fair--a show trial. They hang a man for mass murder, and yet they do it themselves. Who will hang them?

I guess we should have known that mass murder is just part of sectarian culture in Iraq. In that case, Saddam shouldn't have been hanged unless everyone (including those Shiites currently backed by the US, as well as, Western individuals pulling unethical and immoral strings for the past few decades--the Bush family and associates.) will get theirs soon too. The Middle East is nothing more than a bloody show!!

[Kuiper]

that quote has been there since the name was registered. I am not surprised, I'm just surprised the Shiite government was so sloppy in hiding their true motives, agenda...basically 'revealing' the whole trial was a sham. I always thought the trial was unfair and too quick to be fair--a show trial. They hang a man for mass murder, and yet they do it themselves. Who will hang them?

I guess we should have known that mass murder is just part of sectarian culture in Iraq. In that case, Saddam shouldn't have been hanged unless everyone (including those Shiites currently backed by the US, as well as, Western individuals pulling unethical and immoral strings for the past few decades--the Bush family and associates.) will get theirs soon too. The Middle East is nothing more than a bloody show!!

I agree. I want to see all these leaders of these militias hanged too. But I want(ed) Saddam hanged too. But it's not fair to say that Saddam shouldn't have been executed unless many others are too. But remember that I do what these people to get theirs also, but I do not think that should detracted from the just execution of Saddam even if it was done a little unjustly and by incredibly unjust people.

And even though this is off-topic and no one in this thread (that I've seen) had said this, but I've heard a couple people being very hypocritical. They would say, and had been saying for years, that America is imperialist and should stop interfering with the affairs of other countries, but then these same people complained when the Iraqi government (even if it is just a rogue band of Shiites) executed Saddam and America didn't stop it. They said America has no right to stop other countries from conducting their own business, but cry foul if America doesn't overstep its bounds.