Saddam Vows No Return to 'Unjust' Court

[Dan G]

1: We leave
2: Bathist return to power, or others sympathetic to Saddam

1: We leave
2: Country falls into civil war
3: Saddam gets "rescued" by loyalist.

1: We leave
2: Al Quida or other similar group risks a few hundred lives in an attempt to break Saddam out.
3: Civil war ensues, and in the chaos, Saddam regains power.

1: Saddam is found innocent and vindicated, and the UN finds some ridiculous way to install him. (doubt US would allow reinstallment though if still occupying)

So, the most reasonable methods for Saddam regaining power would require our abscence. I suppose Civil war would not require our abscence, but if it were to start, I think we would get Saddam out ASAP. The scale of offensive currently required to get Saddam out while we control him would be beyond the ability of Al Quida I think...

MrH

Nice post. a possible further scenario:

1: any of the above happen, Neither the Coalition, Iran nor Syria like the factions that are developing giving Saddam a window to play one off against the other and return as a power proker behind the scenes, thus minimising international interference and savng face all round.

For the scenario to work Saddam needs to acheive support and respect as he lacks the immediate power he once had - something his trial may actually help him with if the prosecution fail to make their case well enough to convince enough of the iraqi public of his unsuitability for any kind of power.

Having said that I would imagine one faction or another would arrange for him to have an "accident" if it ever seriously looked like he was going to be free to wield influence again. Depending how capable and unified those organising the Sunni insurgency are, he is probably more use to his natural supporters as a martyr figure than he is alive, given his time out of power, and the international attention he would attract. Futhermore the people best placed to help him are also those best placed to lead a Sunni faction, and given his track record for bumping off rivals they have serious discentives to keep him alive when they can use him more safely as a dead figurehead.

 

[mrhnau]

I make no statements about my personal feelings or thoughts concerning you.

If Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the United Nations are not enough proof for you, nothing ever will be sufficient.

I am obviously in a discussion with an ideologue.

If your source of enlightenment includes Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and United Nations, then I consider you an ideologue. You trust different sources than many people do. Its part of what makes us so different. Some people trust source like Al Jazeera. Thats their perogative. I chose to not listen to such sources. Am I closed minded? If you chose to use that label, go ahead. Many chose to ignore sources like Limbaugh or extremist on the right side. Better give them the "close minded" label too. If having formed an opinion makes me closed minded, thats fine. Same thing with regard to US politics. If your source of info is Moveon.org, you will have quite differing views than if your source of info is Limbaugh. Its a matter of who you trust.

Apply your labels consistently.

MrH

 

[michaeledward]

If your source of enlightenment includes Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and United Nations, then I consider you an ideologue. You trust different sources than many people do. Its part of what makes us so different. Some people trust source like Al Jazeera. Thats their perogative. I chose to not listen to such sources. Am I closed minded? If you chose to use that label, go ahead. Many chose to ignore sources like Limbaugh or extremist on the right side. Better give them the "close minded" label too. If having formed an opinion makes me closed minded, thats fine. Same thing with regard to US politics. If your source of info is Moveon.org, you will have quite differing views than if your source of info is Limbaugh. Its a matter of who you trust.

Apply your labels consistently.

MrH

Please list for me which sources that you feel are independent enough to be trustworthy, rather than those whom you feel are untrustworthy.

 

[mrhnau]

Please list for me which sources that you feel are independent enough to be trustworthy, rather than those whom you feel are untrustworthy.

Thats just of my point. Every news source has their own perspective on the news. Today its difficult to decipher the underlying motives of each news source. With each persons beliefs, you get a group of sources that you grow to trust. I think there is no unbiased news source. Taking several different sources gives you just about as good of a perspective as you can get. Ones you find to be consistently unreliable or incredibly biased, dump them. Everyone is going to develop a different list of sources. Yours are different from mine. However, making claims such as

If Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the United Nations are not enough proof for you, nothing ever will be sufficient.

Simply means to me that these sources are meaningful to you. Others will not find these sources sufficient/reliable/reasonably unbiased. I'm one of those people (in particular with the UN).

MrH

 

[arnisador]

The problem with so-called "moral relativism" or "cultural relativism" is that they're still intrinsically absolutistic beliefs.

There's a spectrum that runs from "my beliefs are right" to "all beliefs are equally right" and it's hard to imagine finding a way to decide where we should be on that line that is derived from first principles that are widely accepted. Clearly, what people see as right or wrong depends on their culture/upbringing.

But the nut of it is, we clearly need a consensus on issues like this. Is it morally correct to oppose abortion because we value life, or to allow it because we respect individuals' rights? If you choose not to decide, as they say, you still have made a choice.

cognitive self-contradictions

It's not clear to me that "cognitive" is a useful modifier here. What are you trying to distinguish between?

 

[michaeledward]

Bias is not synonomous with Fabrication.

And again, we get a "I won't trust them ... but I won't tell you who I will trust" response. I am unwilling to be educated, lest my pre-concieved notions are disturbed.

 

[Dan G]

Do I think stopping the holocaust was wrong? No. Did the US invade Europe to stop the holocaust? No.

I guess the way I see it is that there are no firm lines drawn in the sand on cultural issues of right or wrong. Some cultures have abomidable practices in them, but I don't think that we should invade their countries and impose our will and culture on them. However, sometimes, in some circumstances, I might feel differently.

When do you feel it is right to invade another country and impose our will/culture on the people of that country?

Without a firmer analysis your arguments come down to personal belief. They are valid, to you and many others, but not persuasive as they do not present a model that can gain agreement other than on subjective grounds and on a case by case basis. Your approach pretty much reflects the reality of international decision making, irrespective of political view. Whilst I don't always agree with you I don't have huge issues with the approach as a personal belief system, in a complex world most opinions are to one degree or another subjective. It is possible, however, to go beyond a subjective and relativistic approach and achieve some certainty in important areas, if done with care.

The challenge facing International law is in agreeing a set of absolute common standards whilst at the same time preserving the integrity of the State from outside influence.

The problem is that the international law of war, and international treaty law has the primary aim of protecting the integrity of a state, and of the rulers of a state. That is why the allegation that the coalition forces are engaged in regime change in Iraq is so serious. As you say the US didn't invade Europe to prevent the holocaust, the US invaded in self defence, at last in part, in support of almost universally accepted (but not universally obeyed) rules of international law, and in accordance with treaty obligations that made Germany a common agressor with Japan. Having said that I speak English as my first language, and appreciate the sacrifice the US made in achieving that, even if it wasn't the main objective.

Following the war Nuremburg was the first attempt at creating an international agrement on internal state actions that constitute a crime against humanity in general. However, no state in their right mind is going to cede jurisdiction on their internal conduct to an unidentified external power, and the bulk of international law supports this approach. This leads to the UN as a council in which member states can vote to interfere militarily with a non-member state. It remains in effect a subjective judgement as to when this is appropriate, and is obviously severely hampered where internal humanitarian abuses are concerned as too many members of the UN rightly fear setting a precedent when their own conduct is less than perfect.

A further approach is available, and that is to set some absolute standards that can be enforced as a universal right. Arguments on subjective v absolute values are a distraction. it has been done, and very effectively, in a number of countries. The US has a body of law and a Bill of Rights that sets absolute humanitarian rights for their citizens, and the UN has produced a similar absolute list of rights. The EU has done the same, and has also set up a central court that has the power to rule on, but not physically enforce, human rights issues in member states. The crime of genocide has been defined and enforced in the International Court of Justice in the Hague. To argue that the issues are too subjective to be codified is to miss a major point, it has already been done and with some success.

The only development in international law that has yet to happen is to specify a list of absolute humanitarian laws, the breach of which allows a country to sidestep international law and effect policekeeping or regime change, and to create a mechanism where the decision to take action is approved by a defined set of criteria and evidential rules, rather than a subjective vote in the UN. Basically an international court supported by the international community. Applying the rule of law to invasion of another country is entirely possible.

Put simply:
1. it is possible to define some basic but absolute humanitarian rights;

2. it is already possible to create a legal framework for enforcement that is less political and less subjective (International courts);

3. Mechanisms for enforcement already exist, whether UN peacekeepers, or coalitions of motivated countries;

4. Regime change and post conflict settlement has plenty of precedent - e.g. the Marshall plan (thanks again), South Africa, current activities in Afghanistan etc.

On a lot of things I am quite happily subjective, I like to call it tolerance, but I am definitely not a relativist on core humanitarian issues like the right to a fair trial,freedom of expression, freedom from torture, illegality of genocide etc.

 

[7starmantis]

I must appologize up front for this being a long post, my internet connection is crapping out and I want to address all of this in one post. That being said:

The problem with so-called "moral relativism" or "cultural relativism" is that they're still intrinsically absolutistic beliefs. In essence, they are cognitive self-contradictions that deny to all others that which they claim exclusively for themselves.

It's absurd, of course, but no less absurd than any other form of moral absolutism. Any form of moral absolutism is just a thinly-veiled attempt to pass of the morals and values of one's own culture (or sub-culture, as it were) as "the" truth, to the exclusion of all others. It is ethnocentrism at its best.

What is better understood, rather, is that morality (as with any form of "truth") is essentially contextual in nature. It does not stand on its own, magically independent of context, interpretation, or observation. Instead, morality exists in webs upon webs of understanding that define its very being. It is inevitably contextual.

Contextualism is important, in that it frees us from the intellectual lunacy of relativism, but also helps us realize that our values and viewpoints are not some divine Final Truth that everything absolutely must be judged against. Even the philosophy of contextualism itself exists in broader contexts, so at no point do we find an "omega point" that we can go and judge the whole world by.

In fact, you can only make value judgements with a proper understanding of context in hand. Without it, you're just stamping your feet and puffing up your chest about nothing.

Laterz.

This all depends on how you look at it. Choosing to see it this way, in my opinion, is only an excuse to not do the work or spend the time thinking about people who are easily forgotten. The young woman who is trying to make her life and is being beaten and raped repeatedly by the "military" is not worthy of protecting because her own culture allows these acts? As a point of fact, the culture we are discussing does not allow these acts. There must be at some point absolutes, not in religion or even really morals, but in quality of life. You could argue she might not want to be rescued, but then we wouldn't want to put words in her mouth would we?

Your against moral and religious absolutism, and I tend to agree, but at some point the deepr you go, there must be absolutes for things such as rape. Is it ok to sit and allow a rape to continue because in their culture it might be "acceptable"? Ask the woman (or man for that matter) getting raped if its acceptable to them. Your just saying we shouldn't force our rules on them but yet allowing the rapist to force his beliefs on the victim. Where do you stop?

In the same vein, a culture of absolutism eventually burns itself out in attempting to make everyone believe the same dogma. With absolutism, one will never have peace because one can NEVER force everyone into the same mold. The bottom line is that peoples morals are relative and there is nothing anyone can do to change that.

I'm not talking about making everyone believe the same thing. Belief is not the point here, action is. Morals aren't really what I'm talking about either. Your point would lend itself to the arguemnt that rape is ok as long as the rapist believes it is ok. Thats just the other side of this coin. Is it ok to rape someone who believs its wrong if you believe its right? Is it ok to rape someone who believes rape is ok? Or is rape simply wrong? If you can't say absolutely then you leave yoruself open to accepting rape....something I can't do. I'm not saying make everyone believe rape is wrong, just make everyone stop raping innocent young women and even men. Believe what you want, action is whats important.

The bottom line is that Saddam was a secularist and Al Qaeda would never support anyone like that.

For one who disagrees with absolutes, you seem pretty certain of how these religious absolutist will act in the future :wink:

If Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the United Nations are not enough proof for you, nothing ever will be sufficient.

I am obviously in a discussion with an ideologue.

First, lets not go down the road of personal attacks. If your point cannot be made without the use of such attacks, I propose it isn't worth being made.

Second, just because what you consider to be 100% accurate proof doesn't fit with me means nothing will ever be sufficient? You jump to extremes to make your points, this is another logical fallicy. There is plenty that would be sufficient, but I didnt see anything even in your sources that prove anything, just opinions and such. Offer me proof from unbiased or both sides of an argument and we will agree.

Your sources simply said rape is committed quite often, which I would agree with, but gave no proof of accepted or commanded rape. Because people have been wrong and ignored it doesn't mean our military orders it done. Two completely different things.

What your saying is that rape is comitted during times of war by those participating in the war for purposes possibly connected to the war. That is fine, but not the same as saying our military commands and orders the rape of women in order to further or bring about our victory in a war.

7sm

 

[Makalakumu]

I'm not talking about making everyone believe the same thing. Belief is not the point here, action is. Morals aren't really what I'm talking about either. Your point would lend itself to the arguemnt that rape is ok as long as the rapist believes it is ok. Thats just the other side of this coin. Is it ok to rape someone who believs its wrong if you believe its right? Is it ok to rape someone who believes rape is ok? Or is rape simply wrong? If you can't say absolutely then you leave yoruself open to accepting rape....something I can't do. I'm not saying make everyone believe rape is wrong, just make everyone stop raping innocent young women and even men. Believe what you want, action is whats important.

I'm not certain that I follow what you are saying. here is another version of what I was trying to say. If you rape someone in a community where rape is considered wrong, then it is wrong. However, if you rape someone in a community of people who have no problem with rape, then you did nothing wrong.

For one who disagrees with absolutes, you seem pretty certain of how these religious absolutist will act in the future :wink:

I'm not certain at all. I can only look to what they said in the past...which is that they absolutely hate secularists...Saddam included.

 

[michaeledward]

First, lets not go down the road of personal attacks. If your point cannot be made without the use of such attacks, I propose it isn't worth being made.

No personal attack intended. You asked for proof, and then are not willing to consider the proof offered. I am open to, and have asked for, understanding why these sources are insufficient, and receive no response other than "These sources are not acceptable to me".

Second, just because what you consider to be 100% accurate proof doesn't fit with me means nothing will ever be sufficient?

This sentence almost makes sense. Except for the part of ascribing "100% accurate proof" to me. I make no claim that Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, or the United Nations are 100% accurate. I submit them as evidence of militarily supported rapes and tortures. From the opposition, I get not contradictory evidence; I get no disputes of their claims. Only the suggestion that these sources are inadequate.

You jump to extremes to make your points, this is another logical fallicy. There is plenty that would be sufficient, but I didnt see anything even in your sources that prove anything, just opinions and such. Offer me proof from unbiased or both sides of an argument and we will agree.

I do not believe I am providing 'extremes' as evidence. I am willing to discuss contradictory evidence. But I am provided no such evidence. The only evidence before us to make judgements is that submitted by these organizations. No reason to disbelieve these sources is provided.

What would suffice as proof, if these sources do not?

Your sources simply said rape is committed quite often, which I would agree with, but gave no proof of accepted or commanded rape. Because people have been wrong and ignored it doesn't mean our military orders it done. Two completely different things.

I submit this from the HRW article:

We found that rape of women civilians has been deployed as a tactical weapon to terrorize civilian

​

The question I pose from this statment, is who do you propose has "deployed" this tactical weapon?

What your saying is that rape is comitted during times of war by those participating in the war for purposes possibly connected to the war. That is fine, but not the same as saying our military commands and orders the rape of women in order to further or bring about our victory in a war.

7sm

I am making no claims about what "our" military commands and orders are. Although, I think that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is guilty of supporting and condoning torture of Iraqis. That is not the argument I am making here.
Your national-centric point of view appears to be coloring your understanding of the discussion. Or, maybe you just don't want to participate in the this discussion.

 

[arnisador]

However, if you rape someone in a community of people who have no problem with rape, then you did nothing wrong.

There is an example of this type of cultural norm in an Amazon tribe. (Of course, the example is imperfect, but it's a good example nonetheless.) An anthropologist who studied the tribe married a woman from it and wrote a book on them. Unfortunately, although I read a few reviews of it at the time, I cannot recall the details--the many reviews of books on the Yanomami that I have read are blocking it out.

To say that one has done no wrong if the community approves (or doesn't object) is itself a statement of your views on the issue. This type of behaviour is acceptable in the prison community--not to everyone, obviously, but to the community as a whole--let alone what the British Navy did to young recruits for centuries. (That was so institutionalized that Winston Churchill famously listed rum, sodomy, and the lash as the only three traditions of the British Navy.) But from a majority rule/minority rights perspective, one might still argue that it's wrong.

I think it's wrong on absolute grounds, but then that reflects my view of morality. If one takes a very strict evolutionist viewpoint, one might simply account it as reproductive behaviour. Evolutionary psychologists are forever being accused of 'forgiving' or 'justifying' rape as an adaptation of the male. Animal studies lend some credence to this view, though it's not a simple matter.

This is why we have law in addition to morality. Peoples' morals differ, but the law, in principle, does not.

 

[Dan G]

I'm not certain that I follow what you are saying. here is another version of what I was trying to say. If you rape someone in a community where rape is considered wrong, then it is wrong. However, if you rape someone in a community of people who have no problem with rape, then you did nothing wrong.

A fair summation of a relativist approach.

The question is, what is "the community"?

Is it a religious grouping, ethnic grouping, neighbourhood group, sub-culture, dietary preference, sports club, job description, nationality, national residency, citizenship, regional identity, language grouping,fashion choice, preference in music, age group, education level, social status or membership of the human race?

A truly relativist approach is incapable of distinguishing between communities such as the Manson family, Ghandi and followers, Greenpeace eco warriors, the inhabitants of the United States, followers of Buddhism, liberal arts students, Neo Nazi's or even Ted Bundy's community of one (29+ if you include his victims). This approach to moral problem solving clearly doesn't work well, as respecting the moral position of the liberal arts student having carnal knowledge with your family pet, whilst at the same time accommodating without judgement the diverse views of your neighbourhood Neo Nazi's as they BBQ the Tibetan monk you invited round for vegetarian snacks can leave one feeling a little bit too much like a door mat.

An absolutist doesn't have this problem because they consider the ethics and rules of their own "community" as being more important than any other. At their most extreme this type of absolutist tends to be a high achieving but often unpopular visitor (Ghengis Khan, the British Empire), or come to a sticky end (pretty much any religious martyr). This is a highly effective approach to moral problem solving, but it has a very high mortality rate.

If you arrange the "communities" into a hierarchy the problem becomes more manageable. The concepts underpinning international humanitarian law follow this principle in stating a limited number of fundamental rights that override all others, and that apply to humankind as a whole The "community" of humankind is at the top of the hierarchy, and any other "community" is a subset and is free to make whatever rules it chooses, provided those do not contravene the moral obligations and rights that apply to the "community" of humankind as a whole, or a superior "community", if any.

This approach keeps the absolutists happy (provided world conquest isn't on their list of fundamental human rights), and the relativists can be as flexible and diverse as they like on all issues that do not contravene the rules of a superior "community" in the hierarchy. Plenty of scope for argument about the order of various hierarchies of "communities", but so long as it doesn't lead to genocide then no major harm done.

 

[michaeledward]

One assumption that seems to be taken by all througout this discussion, is that all humans have equal rights. This is not now, nor ever has been the case.

Throughout all of history, communities would view 'others' as chattel. Was Thomas Jefferson committing rape when he impregnated Sally Hemings? The young Hemings girl was a slave. She had no rights. Could she have cried rape?

Now, honestly, I don't know what Jefferson and Hemings relationship was like, except that when Jefferson was in France, the Hemings girl was in her early teens. And it is assumed they were intimate at that time. (Is intimate the correct word?).

So, before every decries rape as a universal wrong, I think an examination of the de-humanization that some cultures participate in should be carefully reviewed.

Haven't armies throughout history dehumanized their enemies? Might the result of that be sexual assault that is not 'rape'? Can you rape a living creature that is less than human?

 

[Dan G]

One assumption that seems to be taken by all througout this discussion, is that all humans have equal rights. This is not now, nor ever has been the case.

The basic assumption is that it is the right of all human beings to demand and receive recognition of and treatment consistent with certain basic and fundamental human rights. Those rights continue to exist whether or not they are observed. Just as if I steal your car it remains your property, even if I have infringed your right to enjoy that property, and refuse to acknowledge your ownership of it.
The fact that there has never been a point where mankind was able to equally enjoy the benefit of certain rights does not mean those rights do not exist.

Throughout all of history, communities would view 'others' as chattel. Was Thomas Jefferson committing rape when he impregnated Sally Hemings? The young Hemings girl was a slave. She had no rights. Could she have cried rape?

Now, honestly, I don't know what Jefferson and Hemings relationship was like, except that when Jefferson was in France, the Hemings girl was in her early teens. And it is assumed they were intimate at that time. (Is intimate the correct word?).

So, before every decries rape as a universal wrong, I think an examination of the de-humanization that some cultures participate in should be carefully reviewed.

I'm not sure what you are saying, but I think you are trying to point out that denial of any human rights by "de-humanizing" others, with slavery given as an example, is a more fundamental problem than the more emotive examples of rape as a denial of rights that have been given previously in this thread. Sally Hemming's age would make any sexual relations statutory rape today in most Western legal jurisdictions.The inability of a human being who is "owned" to give a free consent to anything is a good point. For a long time and in analagous circumstances, husbands could rape their wives in the UK with no legal sanction, as until recently a wife could not withhold her consent in law, no matter what the actual facts were. I doubt that as Jefferson's slave Sally Hemmings would have had any greater rights than as his wife, but I don't know.

Haven't armies throughout history dehumanized their enemies?

I don't believe that has always been the case at all. Saying that, it is easy to come up with plenty of examples that show armies de-humanizing an opponent.

Might the result of that be sexual assault that is not 'rape'?

In a word "No". Not in law and not in morality.

Absent psychiatric disorders or similar incompetence or diminishment of responsibility an inability or unwillingness to recognise the rights of others is not a defence.

Situations where combatants themselves have been "de-humanized" may provide a defence to what would otherwise be rape. An extreme example would be child soldiers in West Africa who were routinely raped, forced to witness atrocities, often on family members, and then forced to commit atrocities under duress often in their communities, including rape, as initiation ceremonies designed to traumatise them and prepare them to carry out acts of genocide and prevent them ever returning to their communities. Given their age and their undeniably traumatic experiences Western legal systems would provide them with a number of defences.

Can you rape a living creature that is less than human?

No. It would be bestiality (still defined in many common law jurisdictions as the offence of buggery).

 

[sgtmac_46]

The question of how Saddam maintained his power is veeeeeeeeeery interesting and very embarrassing for the US and allies.

The soviet union aided Saddam, but it was Saddam's ability unite the Sunni's behind him. The notion that the 'US' installed Saddam is nothing but a tin-hat fantasy. I think we've had this debate before, and you came out short.

Saddam acheived power through superior military might. That is the only way a minority can dominate a majority. Saddam does not have that anymore and neither does the minority. That is why he will never get back in power.

Obviously you are ignorant of Saddam's original rise to power. From being in prison to being head of the country in less than 10 years. He fled Iraq ahead of the hounds more than once, and was incarcerated for a time. That Saddam Hussein could return to power, is a possibility. It depends on if the left forces the US to withdrawl prematurely.

The bottom line is that Saddam was a secularist and Al Qaeda would never support anyone like that.

al Qaeda itself probably won't, but the insurgency is a strange hybrid of al Qaeda fighters and Saddam loyalists. What's more, Saddam has emerged as a bit of a martyr to even many NEW al Qaeda members.


What's more, I think we've forgotten that Syria's government ruling party....are also Ba'athists, who might have an interest in maintaining a Ba'athist ruling party in Iraq, as opposed to a Shiite government.


This creates an interesting scenario, with Syria supporting the Sunni's, and, Saddam if he survives. Iran would back the Shiites in the south. The Kurds? They'd be in it for themselves, and would probably declare independence.

So, if we pull out, we can watch the Islamic world erupt, with Sunni's and Syria on one side, Iran and the Shiites on the other, and the Kurds hiding out up north.

So, if we pull out, and Saddam is still alive, I think Syria might intervene on Saddam's part. Iran won't like that one bit.

 

[michaeledward]

Haven't armies throughout history dehumanized their enemies?

I don't believe that has always been the case at all. Saying that, it is easy to come up with plenty of examples that show armies de-humanizing an opponent.

Can you rape a living creature that is less than human?

No. It would be bestiality (still defined in many common law jurisdictions as the offence of buggery).

Here is an argument ... and perhaps a way of see how rape is both a) morally reprehensible and b) a tool of warfare.

The powers that launch a war against a neighboring country create a de-humanizing portrait of the 'other'. The 'other' is perceived as less than human. Soldiers, who throughout the build-up and campaigns of battle have been told the 'other' is less than human. Because the 'other' is not equal as a human, soldiers who sexually assault them, may have a twisted view of what is occurring .. e.g. bestiality, but not rape.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Here is an argument ... and perhaps a way of see how rape is both a) morally reprehensible and b) a tool of warfare.

The powers that launch a war against a neighboring country create a de-humanizing portrait of the 'other'. The 'other' is perceived as less than human. Soldiers, who throughout the build-up and campaigns of battle have been told the 'other' is less than human. Because the 'other' is not equal as a human, soldiers who sexually assault them, may have a twisted view of what is occurring .. e.g. bestiality, but not rape.

One need look no further than the Japanese treatment of 'comfort women', the Rape of Nanking, and many, many other attrocities during WWII to see how rape and attrocity can become a tool of warfare.

 

[Makalakumu]

The soviet union aided Saddam, but it was Saddam's ability unite the Sunni's behind him. The notion that the 'US' installed Saddam is nothing but a tin-hat fantasy. I think we've had this debate before, and you came out short.

Yes, we had this debate before and I clearly showed that the US had a huge part in supporting Saddam's regime. Yes, there were other people involved, but the US, with its influence, money, loans, actual gifts of military equipment and through dealings with private corporations, was by far the largest supporter of Saddam.

Obviously you are ignorant of Saddam's original rise to power. From being in prison to being head of the country in less than 10 years. He fled Iraq ahead of the hounds more than once, and was incarcerated for a time. That Saddam Hussein could return to power, is a possibility. It depends on if the left forces the US to withdrawl prematurely.

No it doesn't. It all depends on whether or not he lives, which is probably not going to happen. Beyond that, it depends on whether he can garner enough military support...which is not going to happen.

al Qaeda itself probably won't, but the insurgency is a strange hybrid of al Qaeda fighters and Saddam loyalists. What's more, Saddam has emerged as a bit of a martyr to even many NEW al Qaeda members.

This is a good point and it may represent a change in attitude. Stranger things have happened.

What's more, I think we've forgotten that Syria's government ruling party....are also Ba'athists, who might have an interest in maintaining a Ba'athist ruling party in Iraq, as opposed to a Shiite government.

This creates an interesting scenario, with Syria supporting the Sunni's, and, Saddam if he survives. Iran would back the Shiites in the south. The Kurds? They'd be in it for themselves, and would probably declare independence.

So, if we pull out, we can watch the Islamic world erupt, with Sunni's and Syria on one side, Iran and the Shiites on the other, and the Kurds hiding out up north.

This may happen no matter how long the US stays in Iraq. As long as the violence continues to escalate and the region's oil is up for grabs, we looking at the prospects of civil war regardless of our actions.

So, if we pull out, and Saddam is still alive, I think Syria might intervene on Saddam's part. Iran won't like that one bit.

That could be possible, however, I think Saddam's reputation is bad enough that someone new and "clean" would be found for a figurehead.

 

[7starmantis]

I'm not certain that I follow what you are saying. here is another version of what I was trying to say. If you rape someone in a community where rape is considered wrong, then it is wrong. However, if you rape someone in a community of people who have no problem with rape, then you did nothing wrong.

Ok, this is exactly what I'm trying to say. Your saying its not wrong to whom? The person getting raped? I'm not saying rape is wrong as an absolute because everyone thinks it is, but because regardless of its acceptance by some cultures, its still not an acceptable practice. Are you then accepting of rape if the culture allows it? Would you not try and stop a rape occuring if the person committing the rape believes it to be ok? It goes back to my unanswered questions....

Is rape ok if the person committing the rape and the person being raped believe rape is acceptable?

Is rape ok if you believe its acceptable ragardless of what the victim believes?

Again, your saying we can't force our beliefs on others but yet support a rapist forcing his belief of rape being ok on a young woman or man. Its a double standard that is hard to get around.

No personal attack intended. You asked for proof, and then are not willing to consider the proof offered. I am open to, and have asked for, understanding why these sources are insufficient, and receive no response other than "These sources are not acceptable to me".

Name calling is most deffinitely a personal attack, but lets leave it alone and continue with the discussion at hand. I am most willing to consider the evidence you offered....I have considered it, read it, and thought about it. I simply found nothing in the "evidence" you offered that shows what you are claiming it does. I didn't say the sources weren't acceptable to me, maybe you should look at who is posting what when you read this thread. What I'm saying is your evidence only shows the fact that rape is committed and has in the past often been ignored. It offeres nothing about condoned, commanded, ordered, or accepted as a general practice for the military.

This sentence almost makes sense. Except for the part of ascribing "100% accurate proof" to me. I make no claim that Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, or the United Nations are 100% accurate. I submit them as evidence of militarily supported rapes and tortures. From the opposition, I get not contradictory evidence; I get no disputes of their claims. Only the suggestion that these sources are inadequate.

Again, you are skirting a fine line with personal attacks, why can't we leave that out of this? If your not claiming your own evidence as accurate...why should I?
The fact still remains that I didn't say your sources were inadequate (as you have said I did twice now), I said they didn't show what you claimed they did. Again allow me to seperate and clearify what I'm saying.

I am not saying rape hasn't been committed during war time by those participating in the war. Nor am I saying rape hasn't been ignored by those participating in a war. What I am saying is that I see nothing to show that rape is an accepted and ordered practice among our military or the militaries of any country associated with this discussion...except Saddam's.
The truth is we have gone off topic here....the fact of this is moot to this discussion, rape is wrong...absolutely. The rape of the Iraqi people by Saddam is one thing he should be held accountable for....regardless of weather anyone else does it too.

7sm

 

[shesulsa]

Gentlemen, let's take a breather and come back to this discussion on topic, shall we?