I'm So Damn Confused...

[Jonathan Randall]

I'm So Damn Confused. My opposition to the invasion and occupation of Iraq has consisted, for the most part, upon my concern for the needless, IMO, waste of American lives, the immense expense (enough to have rebuilt a significant portion of the U.S.'s own infrastructure) and the ultimate consequences to America that would ensue from turning Iraq into a unifying force and training ground for a future generation of terrorists (much in the way that the Soviet-Afghan war did for those who attacked us on 9/11) as well as bringing Russia and China further into each other's laps to counter American power. What was largely missing in my personal world view was concern for Iraqis. True, I understood (with the examples of Beirut in the 1980's and Yugoslavia in the 1990's) that in removing Hussein from power we would be opening up a Pandora's box of ethnic and sectarian strife. Still, what about the victims of Hussein? Was their torment to be unanswered? Please understand, though, that I believe that the "humanitarian" aspect used by right-wing apologists to justify this war was and is self-serving and mostly shallow. If Hussein had continued to play ball with us, like Uzbekistan, Turkey and Indonesia and so many other nations with grave human right's violations, he would STILL be our very best friend.

Still, what about the tens of thousands Hussein deliberately murdered and the hundreds of thousands his aggressions killed? We said after 1945 Never Again. Of course, we unfortunately have been very selective in this (note: Black Africa, for the most part, and Bosnia until 1995), but what about Hussein? Should we have removed him as we did but only have done that and not tried to rebuild Iraq in our own image? I'm tied here - before now I would have emphatically said NO on both counts. Now, I am not so certain that my side held all the high moral ground even though I still believe that the idea of turning Iraq, an artificial, Yugoslavian sort of state, into a Jeffersonian Republic was and is a fool's errand that is costing American lives and treasure needlessly. Yet waging agressive (or "preventive" as Bush apologists aver we did, although Nuremburg recognized no such distinction) war requires, IMO, a very high threshold of proof which, propaganda aside, was not met in the months leading up to the Iraq War Resolution of 7-2002, IMO. Thoughts?

 

[michaeledward]

Saddam Hussein started a war of aggression against Iran. That is a bad thing.

Saddam Hussein started a war of aggression against Kuwait. That is a bad thing.

The United States started a war of aggression against Iraq. Who the hell are we to talk?

Saddam Hussein was tried and convicted for the deaths of 148 Iraqis in Dujil. When our great grandchildren read about this incident; that is the fact they will be presented with. He was hanged for 148 deaths, 25 years ago. I imagine the photograph of Hussein and Rumsfeld will be the accompanying image; as it was taken a short time after those 148 deaths.

Oh, the irony.

 

[bydand]

Have to disagree slightly here. He was convicted and hung for the deaths of 148 people, true; that's all that will be in history books in 25 years, along with a photo of him shaking hands with Rumsfeld? What? You cannot REALLY believe that now right. Even the most liberal, left-wing person has a better understanding than that. Look at the history books now, are we limited to the crimes that the Nuremberg trials looked at and convicted as being the only actions taken by the individuals that were tried? No we are not, and that is further back than 25 years, combined with far less media resources at the time. Why even mention the photo with Rumsfeld would be a good question, oh yeah, because it is an easy jab at the present administration. It has NOTHING to do with the crime he was convicted for. It just happened to taken around the same time, I'm sure we could find a photo of him kissing a baby around that timeframe as well, but it wouldn't be following the liberals media games as well now would it? That was a useless reply made to an honest question.

As for being confused, I think that is the feelings of everybody that has held a firm conviction against the actions in Iraq and also the death penality, and then really looks at something like this. It is bound to call into question what to do with the individual that can still hold sway over a faction of people that may continue the legacy of tourture and murder. Wish I had an easy answer for you Jonathan, but the only person who can answer, is yourself. Should it in the long run color your personally held values and change your beliefs, probably not.

 

[michaeledward]

Scott G.

I know that arch duke Ferdinand was assassinated in some Eastern European Country back in the early 20th century. And that assassination kicked off World War I. What I do not know, with any clarity, is the context of that assassination. Was it a lone gunman? Was it a rebelious movement? Was it a neighboring nation? I really don't know. But, what I have learned - in the broad sweeps of history - is that this one assassination led to the trench warfare, and chemical weapons of World War I.

If we are not terrified that the execution of Saddam Hussein might set off an similiar conflict, starting between Islamic sects, and expanding throughout the world - because of the precarious positioning of Islam over the worlds major oil reserves - we just haven't been paying attention.

As for the photo - to not note the irony of a photograph of the leader who may start WWIII - shaking hands with the leader that later brought the destruction of his nation, and the gallows, is ... well .... ironic. And I think it will be historic.


As George Will said the other day - tranquilizing - we are witnessing the beginning of the Ethnic Cleansing of the middle east. I hope I am wrong.

 

[mrhnau]

If we are not terrified that the execution of Saddam Hussein might set off an similiar conflict, starting between Islamic sects, and expanding throughout the world - because of the precarious positioning of Islam over the worlds major oil reserves - we just haven't been paying attention.

Terrified? No. Aware? yes.

As George Will said the other day - tranquilizing - we are witnessing the beginning of the Ethnic Cleansing of the middle east. I hope I am wrong.

Indeed!

 

[bydand]

Scott G.

I know that arch duke Ferdinand was assassinated in some Eastern European Country back in the early 20th century. And that assassination kicked off World War I. What I do not know, with any clarity, is the context of that assassination. Was it a lone gunman? Was it a rebelious movement? Was it a neighboring nation? I really don't know. But, what I have learned - in the broad sweeps of history - is that this one assassination led to the trench warfare, and chemical weapons of World War I.

There was another gunman on the grassy knoll don't you know. All joking aside, I know where you are coming from with this, but feel this is totally different ballgame. Archduke Ferdinand was assassinated, not tried by his own countrymen for crimes agains his own country, and then executed as punishment.

If we are not terrified that the execution of Saddam Hussein might set off an similiar conflict, starting between Islamic sects, and expanding throughout the world - because of the precarious positioning of Islam over the worlds major oil reserves - we just haven't been paying attention.

Contraire, I have been paying attention and do have a concern for the stability of the area. Notice I said the area, I honestly do not feel this will kick off WW3 due to the simle fact he was tried by a court system and exceuted according to that countrys laws. Trouble? YES; WW3? No.

As for the photo - to not note the irony of a photograph of the leader who may start WWIII - shaking hands with the leader that later brought the destruction of his nation, and the gallows, is ... well .... ironic. And I think it will be historic.


As George Will said the other day - tranquilizing - we are witnessing the beginning of the Ethnic Cleansing of the middle east. I hope I am wrong.

The leader that "may start WW3" is out of office and is unable to start anything at this point. It will fall into others hands as to the follow-up of actions he started, and as the old saying goes, "It takes two to tango" Rumsfeld never was able to start WW3 himself, even when he was in office.

As for George Wills' comment, I too hope he is wrong!

 

[michaeledward]

Terrified? No. Aware? yes.

Very bad word choice on my part there.

And while the military is reporting a tactical awareness of the possibility of heightened violence, I would be concerned of the military's tactical awareness may blind them from strategic awareness.

I think being 'aware' of what might come as a result of this execution may prove to be insufficient to meet the challenges to be presented. I hope we are all more than 'aware'.

 

[Marginal]

Still, what about the tens of thousands Hussein deliberately murdered and the hundreds of thousands his aggressions killed? We said after 1945 Never Again. Of course, we unfortunately have been very selective in this (note: Black Africa, for the most part, and Bosnia until 1995), but what about Hussein? Should we have removed him as we did but only have done that and not tried to rebuild Iraq in our own image?

We never even tried to rebuild Iraq in our own image. The model for the government etc was completely different. That aside, if we had say, brought enough troops to not only topple Saddam but also secure the country, not disbanded the Iraqui army, and brought over more than three people to REBUILD IRAQS INFASTRUCTURE, not gone in with an expectation that we'd get ahold of a country with the infrastructure intact, only Saddam's gone in our fairytale scenario etc, we might not be in the mess we are now.

 

[Jonathan Randall]

We never even tried to rebuild Iraq in our own image. The model for the government etc was completely different. That aside, if we had say, brought enough troops to not only topple Saddam but also secure the country, not disbanded the Iraqui army, and brought over more than three people to REBUILD IRAQS INFASTRUCTURE, not gone in with an expectation that we'd get ahold of a country with the infrastructure intact, only Saddam's gone in our fairytale scenario etc, we might not be in the mess we are now.

I don't necessarily disagree with you.