Saddam's Execution...

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

Christian Fundamentists blame the USA's Liberals for a loss of traditional values in the USA.

- For Fundamentalist Christians, the USA's Liberal lifestyle is a symbol of moral decay. They see the USA's Liberal lifestyle as responsible for a decline in traditional values and lifestyles.

Fundamentalist Christians see the American Liberal lifestyle as a dangerous competitor for the hearts and minds of Christians.

- Fundamentalist Christians view the technologically advanced and secular lifestyle in the United States as a dangerous temptation for Christians and that it will lead them away from Fundamentalist Christian values.

Fundamentalist Christians believe that they are dominated by the West coast and East coast of the United States.

- What is truly evil and unacceptable [to the Fundamentalist Christian] is the domination of secular Liberals over true believers.

[K@t 38]

I didn't think he would be executed so soon, I thought that there would be appeals and such. The whole thing is a mess. I would rather have our boys back home. And even though Saddam is dead, the war still rages on. My cousins husband is going to Iraq next month....their baby just turned 1 year old on Dec. 15th. They are trying for another one before he leaves because she doesn't know if he will come back home.

Also...religion should have no place government. Although most governments were founded on religious beliefs, the fact is times change and more countries have many different religions living together and our governments should change as well. They need to respect the differences and remain unbias in their laws and day to day activities.

[GeezerSue 7]

...At the time we went to war with Iraq EVERYONE though he had weapons of mass destruction.

Actually, no. Perhaps you believe this because you have not heard the truth on the matter, which is not surprising since it was underreported..even ignored. But, here it is...the truth should never be too late to be welcomed:

Summary: Four days after former high-ranking CIA official Tyler Drumheller revealed that the Bush administration dismissed clear-cut evidence undermining President Bush's central case for war -- that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction -- the media, except for MSNBC and now CNN, have largely ignored the story.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200604270015

So, if by "we" you mean the US government, then, NO, everyone did NOT believe that Saddam had WMD's. But those who reported on this fact were ignored...and even the media let them slide.

[skyeblu79 0]

I agree with mousecrazy and thought she needed a little support against all the Bush haters. One of the main arguments here seems to be that we are picking on poor Saddam and Iraq over other dictators and killers in other countries. At the time we went to war with Iraq EVERYONE though he had weapons of mass destruction. If you remember correctly there were 16 UN resolutions against him because he wouldn't allow inspection of what were thought to be nuclear sites. Now, granted there were no weapons of mass destruction, but we and Tony Blair and the Germans and everyone else thought there were. That was the main reason behind the invasion of IRaq. No one thinks the African nations have any of those. Plus Saddam did have ties to terrorism. I know all you Bush haters out there think there was some vast conspiracy involving oil or something, but that puts you in the same category as people who believe that Bush actually orchestrated 9/11 for some nefarious purpose of his own. Yes, mistakes were made, and maybe after all the facts were known we shouldn't have gone into Iraq in the first place, but you work with the knowledge you have at the time.

Everyone didn't think Saddam had WOMD.

I don't think it's as simple as a mistake was made. I think a lot of people that voted for the war feel lied too and misled.

[Gabi 0]

I think the timing of his execution was so bad, it was the same date of the first day of the muslim holly feast. As a muslim waking up to a feast full of headlines of someone exectued wasnt nice at ALL.

[GeezerSue 7]

...so then.....Colin Powell standing up in front of the UN showing those photos and evidence was part of the BushCo plot? Did our former Joint Chief of Staff have his own agenda, was he part of the conspiracy to mislead, or was he lied to himself?

Glad you asked, Jack.

"...the information in Powell's presentation initially came from a document he described as 'sort of a Chinese menu' that was provided by the White House."

source: http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/19/powell.un/

Actually, most of what I've read on the topic does not refer to any massive conspiracy, but rather to a mindset...an unquestioning willingness to believe bad stuff--and to disregard any and all information which conflicts with the bad stuff--about the enemy. (I may suffer from a little of this when it comes to Dubya himself...who knows?)

I'm not sure I can recite the four reasons Bush cited, but I'm pretty sure that one of them was to enforce the UN resolutions requiring Saddam to disarm. And, who gave us the right to enforce UN resolutions? Not the UN. Nope, Bush did. What incredible arrogance...what hubris! Let's say I'm a MEMBER of an organization..a union, maybe. And the union has a contract that a certain employer will pay a particular wage for given employee labor/services. And I find out that some employer somewhere isn't honoring that agreement...so I decide that a few of us in the union ought to go knock down his door and TAKE the money out of the office so that the union employees will be paid as agreed. I would, rightfully, be arrested as a thug and a thief and a threat to the neighborhood...because nobody made me "the enforcer." Just like the UN did not appoint Dubya the enforcer of these particular resolutions.

[amillerjones 0]

Carlene, you stated the difference between Ossama and Sadam much more beautifully then I could. You stated exactly what I was thinking, but couldn't word it properly. I hope that the information that you gave helped clarify the difference between the two.

[mousecrazy 2]

Thank you Jack and GrannyAces.

I agree that work on the treadmill is much more productive than ever entering the fray here, and I always appreciate reason and logic, which both of you presented.

[Carlene 12]

Carlene, you stated the difference between Ossama and Sadam much more beautifully then I could. You stated exactly what I was thinking, but couldn't word it properly. I hope that the information that you gave helped clarify the difference between the two.

Thanks. My English Comp instructors would be proud to learn that my education wasn't entirely wasted.

[bitteroldhag 0]

Hmmm. If international law were followed, George Bush would on trial for crimes against humanity.

[bitteroldhag 0]

I too agree with Becca77 with regards to her complaint about the current administration's claim that they have helped a country rid itself of a ruthless dictator and that therefore they are a force for the moral good in this world. Cowboys in white hats. There are so many countries that are oppressed by violent and cruel dictators and these are ignored by the men in white cowboy hats. Of course these are countries which do not contain vast reserves of oil or have a major canal running through it. Post colonial Africa is, by and large, a blood soaked mess and yet it is ignored. Afghanistan and northern Pakistan are where the Taliban are. It is also considered to be a breeding ground for al Qaeda and is, of course, where Osama bin Laden was last seen.

There are Canadian soldiers deployed in the south of Afghanistan. This is where all the fighting is and this is where the Americans used to be until the start of the Iraqi war. The other NATO forces are all deployed in the peaceful north. Although Canada has requested assistance in the war zone she has been turned down.

As for Iraq, I have been reading interesting reports in the Canadian media. Though many Iraqis are glad that Saddam is gone many are beginning to regret his deposal. You see, although he was violent and cruel, he did bring stability to the country. Folks who hated him and saw family members suffer under his regime do say that they miss the stability.

I was interested to read that much the same kind of thought is prevalent in southern Afghanistan. It seems that many of the folk who initially viewed the western forces as their liberators have grown so exhausted by this dirty and interminable war that they now long for the peaceful days of the Taliban. All of this is terribly sad.

And then we have another country that is broken and divided: America. I view the activities of this administration as being in the realm of bizarre. Indeed, the word hubris springs to mind.

The American people will be left on the financial hook for billions,...trillions of dollars thanks to the actions of these arrogant cowboys.

And because this Iraq business was engaged in without international agreement, America has lost face in the global arena. It is always understood by those governments which are more sophisticated and less arrogant that these issues of foreign affairs and international diplomacy must be carefully worked out. There are both cultural and historical issues at play in the Middle East along with regional and international interests.

This particular administration has acted with arrogance, self-interest, and in an aggressively anti-intellectual manner. This is a tragedy. Americans should know that your country is the linch-pin upon which the stability of the West relies. Of course you care about your country. You should know that there are foreigners who care about the well-being of America, too.

While I think your post is very good in general, I must point out that fascists were the people who brought order to Germany and Italy in the 20th century. Saddam may have had order, but it was at the point of a gun. Democracy is not orderly and if Iraq ever succeeds in getting democracy, it will be the general mess it is everywhere else. However, I don't think they will manage that. They want order and some strongman will offer it to them and they will take it regardless of the loss of freedom it will entail. I would do that too if I were there. Most people just want to live their lives with a minimum of inconvenience and I think the Iraqis have a maximum of inconvenience at the moment. So I think another dictator is in the offing. For the U.S., the key is to make sure the dictator is on our side. That is our history with dictators. Washington has a long history of propping up dictators who side with Americans. It's sad really. I'm so glad Canada is there to offer some sanity in this world.

[bitteroldhag 0]

Thanks, green!

I like discussing contentious topics, too. Some people even consider "contentious" my middle name! LOL! Thankfully, discussion usually involves more than one point of view, so I throw mine in occasionally, just to invite a broader outlook.

You know everytime I poke my head in on one of these threads, I am usually in the minority opinion, so I try to make my point, then get out of the way. Still, I believe that a good discussion needs all the sides represented, so I am willing to do my best to see that this is done.

Happy New Year to all of you, too!

Mouse -- Thanks for your viewpoint. Early Americans realized that democracy is the way to have all viewpoints represented and, while I may not agree with you, I will die to allow you to voice your opinion. I have found that Americans disagree on a lot of small points, but usually agree on the big points and the country at large usually finally gets it right. In Saddam's Iraq, opinions were not enthusiastically received. I think Saddam got what he deserved, but I hate the way it was done, especially with the catcalls and all. Also that fact that it was done on a Muslim holiday is awful. It would be like hanging G.W. Bush on Christmas. One would think the powers that be would take these things into consideration.

[green 6]

And what about Hans Blix and his report concerning the weapons of mass destruction? After the Gulf War a U.N.-sponsored international team was placed in Iraq. Its mission was to search out all weapons of mass destruction in order that these might be destroyed. This team remained there for some years and was headed up by Hans Blix, a former Swedish Dipomat. Though this effort was disbanded in the late 1990s Blix was recalled under the auspices of the U.N. after 9/11 to make a further search for weapons of mass destruction. He reported to congress that none had been found before Bush chose to invade Iraq claiming that Saddam did in fact have WMDs. As we now all know, none were found.

[lisah25 3]

I agree with mousecrazy and thought she needed a little support against all the Bush haters. One of the main arguments here seems to be that we are picking on poor Saddam and Iraq over other dictators and killers in other countries. At the time we went to war with Iraq EVERYONE though he had weapons of mass destruction. If you remember correctly there were 16 UN resolutions against him because he wouldn't allow inspection of what were thought to be nuclear sites. Now, granted there were no weapons of mass destruction, but we and Tony Blair and the Germans and everyone else thought there were. That was the main reason behind the invasion of IRaq. No one thinks the African nations have any of those. Plus Saddam did have ties to terrorism. I know all you Bush haters out there think there was some vast conspiracy involving oil or something, but that puts you in the same category as people who believe that Bush actually orchestrated 9/11 for some nefarious purpose of his own. Yes, mistakes were made, and maybe after all the facts were known we shouldn't have gone into Iraq in the first place, but you work with the knowledge you have at the time.

No, not everyone thought he had WMD. Others thought he might, but that the UN inspectors be given more time.

And regardless, there never was any proof at all that he was linked to 9/11, one of the main rallying crys for this war.

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

Glad you asked, Jack.

"...the information in Powell's presentation initially came from a document he described as 'sort of a Chinese menu' that was provided by the White House."

source: http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/08/19/powell.un/

Actually, most of what I've read on the topic does not refer to any massive conspiracy, but rather to a mindset...an unquestioning willingness to believe bad stuff--and to disregard any and all information which conflicts with the bad stuff--about the enemy. (I may suffer from a little of this when it comes to Dubya himself...who knows?)

I'm not sure I can recite the four reasons Bush cited, but I'm pretty sure that one of them was to enforce the UN resolutions requiring Saddam to disarm. And, who gave us the right to enforce UN resolutions? Not the UN. Nope, Bush did. What incredible arrogance...what hubris! Let's say I'm a MEMBER of an organization..a union, maybe. And the union has a contract that a certain employer will pay a particular wage for given employee labor/services. And I find out that some employer somewhere isn't honoring that agreement...so I decide that a few of us in the union ought to go knock down his door and TAKE the money out of the office so that the union employees will be paid as agreed. I would, rightfully, be arrested as a thug and a thief and a threat to the neighborhood...because nobody made me "the enforcer." Just like the UN did not appoint Dubya the enforcer of these particular resolutions.

Isn't it funny that the conservatives and Neo-Cons want the UN dismantled (or at least removed from US soil), yet use it to their advantage when an excuse is needed for an invasion by the USA or for destruction of a country's infrastructure and populace as was done by Israel against Lebanon?

As far as Powell's UN speech. I believe Powell is the ultimate team player. He argued against war in Iraq, but with Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Pearl, et all, egging BuSh on to glory, the BuSh decision was a fait accompli. BuSh then ordered the "good soldier" to make His (BuSh's) case before the UN and "the General" did what he was told, putting his heart and soul into it.