saddam

[mr. treat]

i was reading about saddam hussein's trial in the newspaper, about how he refuses to cooperate with the court, claims he is the official elected leader of iraq, and called for iraqis to stop fighting one another and start fighting america. it seems that most of the violence going on is caused by a religious rift, with both sides wanting control of the government, and america now acting as a sad little police force for an internal conflict.

so, my question is, are the iraqi people really better off without saddam in power? sure, he was ruthless, and he most certainly had a number of people killed, but maybe it takes an iron fisted tyrant like him to hold together such a splintered nation.

[Claverhouse]

Well, legally he still is the president ( if you accept republics ); but I read an interesting suggestion yesterday on the web, that it is time for America to reinstall him and his regime under their supervision as the only figure capable of running Iraq.

This sort of thing has happened before, particularly in the Ancient world and in Empires where the controlling power has come to an arrangement with a political leader they've imprisoned, either justly or unjustly. And even recently Nelson Mandela was released after a very long imprisonment to become president of South Africa through an accommodation with his quondam enemies. And his people ( as well as his antagonists who perpetrated Apartied ) had equal atrocities to those alleged against Saddam.

As his wife once said ( although not at a Nobel Peace Prize function ) 'With our necklaces we shall liberate South Africa' holding up a lighter. Which came to pass, the practice of necklacing, whereby a gang of freedom fighters would place a rubber tyre around a suspected fellow-black's head, fill it with petrol, and then set light to it, having helped.


Claverhouse :ph34r:

[joft]

http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=6881

i went off on this in this thread (and the one the first post links to, which is more interesting imo)

basically, i think it's going to come down to us saying "you broke our laws" and him saying "they don't apply to me" and us asserting that we're right and he's not

[mr. treat]

basically, i think it's going to come down to us saying "you broke our laws" and him saying "they don't apply to me" and us asserting that we're right and he's not

you're probably right as far as his trial is concerned, but what i wonder is whether or not he was the only thing holding iraq together, and now that he's out of the picture if it's only fated for factorial violence to eventually pan out a new ruler for the country. any democracy installed isn't going to last without religious support, no matter how much money is pumped into it.

[mr. treat]

factorial = factional. too much math these days.

[dubbeltop]

Noo i believe they shouldnt let it come to a trial in the first place. By the time the trial is over iraq will be burning and the allied forces are drinking tea in iran. Because as long as Saddam lives the resistance will fight. Anyway what is happening in iraq is really tragic for all people in the world. Because this show what happens if people think democracy can be created like an apple pie. Only if a miracle happens this will work out. But there is too much hate right now and if the americans leave all hell will break loose. Just as in Yugoslavia hatred is being fueled because there is no visible solution for iraq. A strong leader doesnt solve the problem just makes it temporarily better. Because people in iraq cant really understand democracy and rather fight than live with there sunni or shiite neighbours. soo. thats my opnion zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz