Notices
Results 1 to 21 of 21

Thread: Politics: My Wrong Predictions.

  1. #1 Politics: My Wrong Predictions. 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The Edge
    Posts
    189
    This is a vain emotive note, tossed into the eternally evaporating datasphere, like a frowning leaf down an overflowing sewer.


    I was so sure, and I was so wrong that:

    1. After the Cold War had toned down a bit, Africa could, free (or reduced) of proxy wars, get better. No. It didn’t. So The Cold War was never Africa’s excuse?

    2. We would never murder the democratically elected President Saddam Hussein via a kangaroo court. Never. We did. Boy was I wrong about how low we can go.

    3. Half-Black Obama could never be elected. ‘We’ just weren’t ready. No possible way. Wrong. Boy I was wrong about how high we can go.

    So, I really don’t know. Anything.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Masters Degree Numsgil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    708
    People are always surprising

    Why do you think Saddam's court was kangaroo? He had the support of an army of international lawyers to ensure it was a fair trial. I haven't heard even the whisper of a possibility that the trial wasn't on the up and up. If anything the judge had been appointed by Saddam years prior so you'd think it would have worked the other way around.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The Edge
    Posts
    189
    The 'government' that was elected was from a set that the USA "approved".

    "Vici Iraq"


    They did what they were told/allowed.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Masters Degree Numsgil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    708
    Well sure, you don't expect the US to appoint anti US leaders do you? But that doesn't really affect the bias (or not) of Saddam's trial. He clearly ordered those deaths of those people in that place at that one time (I never cared enough to remember the specifics). Assuming it was illegal for him to do that (I'm not an Iraqi law expert) I think it was a fair trial.

    If you want to understand what a real kangaroo court is, watch the recent episode of Battlestar Galactica where there was a mutiny and they were going to try Admiral Adama. Real kangaroo courts don't take months to run. They don't involve a team of international lawyers for the defense. And they aren't run by a judge appointed by the defendant.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Senior Kukhri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    392
    Saddam was sentenced for the 1982 killing of 148 people in Dujail. As Saddam's motorcade passed through the city where he was to deliver a speech, it was attacked by one or more assassins. The military reprisals killed 148 men, some as young as 13. 1,500 residents were imprisoned and tortured and others were sent to desert camps. The town was leveled and 250,000 acres of farmland were destroyed.

    The case went to a nine-judge appeals panel with unlimited time for review, but the verdict and sentence was upheld.

    Among other cases, Saddam was also on trial for gassing of Kurds in Northern Iraq; a far more sinister act, but the trial was discontinued after he recieved a death sentence for the Dujail massacre.

    Disagreeing with the invasion of Iraq is one thing, but trying to defend Saddam is a arguement will quickly descend into sillyness. He was a very bad man.
    Co-producer of Red Oasis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Re: Politics: My Wrong Predictions. 
    Forum Senior Kukhri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    392
    Quote Originally Posted by Vexer
    2. We would never murder the democratically elected President Saddam Hussein via a kangaroo court. Never. We did. Boy was I wrong about how low we can go.
    Democratically elected? Sure.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2331951.stm
    Co-producer of Red Oasis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The Edge
    Posts
    189
    Kukhri,

    I didn’t read your link because I could guess what it said.


    Saddam was sentenced for the 1982 killing of 148 people in Dujail.”

    When you say, “Saddam” you mean, President Hussein. Why do you use his first name?

    148?

    Are you aware that according to the UN, USA-led trade sanctions ‘directly resulted’ in the deaths of 500 000 Iraqi woman and children? Over the ten years?

    Half a million.

    Should we murder George and Bill?

    (afterthought: who is a very bad man? 500 000).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The Edge
    Posts
    189
    Well, Numsgil... I've been informed that the newest BattleStar is in fact socially illuminating. But I've not seen it.

    I think the USA picked the allowable parties. And hence the 'government' (In the election). If they hadn't used their Force, it'd be an Islamic Republic now.

    Kangaroo Government.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Masters Degree Numsgil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    708
    Possibly, but it doesn't change the fact that Saddam (first name is easier to spell btw, that's why I use it) was tried under Iraqi law, found guilty, and executed. The government is probably gerrymandered (look the term up if you aren't familiar with it ) to be pro-US. It'd be silly to "liberate" a country only to have have the old guys stay in power. But that doesn't change the fact that Saddam committed crimes.

    It's not about people dying, mind you. People die all the time. It's about people dying without due process of the law. That's the difference between a murder and execution.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Senior Kukhri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    392
    Quote Originally Posted by Vexer
    When you say, “Saddam” you mean, President Hussein. Why do you use his first name?
    I originally used "Hussein", but replaced it with the more coloquial "Saddam". I didn't feel like using the name of the Jordanian King Hussein in the same sentence as "gassing kurds". Are you trying to 1 up me with a trifling issue of title?

    Critics of the UN's sanctions on Iraq wanted to call them acts of genocide. In response:
    Mario Bettati, Professor of International Public Law at the University of Paris II-
    "People who talk like that don’t know anything about law. The embargo has certainly affected the Iraqi people badly, but that’s not at all a crime against humanity or genocide."
    William Bourdon, the secretary-general of International Federation of Human Rights Leagues-
    "one of the key elements of a crime against humanity and of genocide is intent. The embargo wasn’t imposed because the United States and Britain wanted children to die. If you think so, you have to prove it."
    Quote Originally Posted by Vexer
    I didn’t read your link because I could guess what it said.
    You didn't read my link because you are not interested in a different point of view, thus making reasoning with you pointless. I will however, continue to correct your flawed arguments so that future readers are not lead astray.

    I reiterate:
    Quote Originally Posted by Kukhri
    trying to defend Saddam is a arguement will quickly descend into sillyness. He was a very bad man.
    Co-producer of Red Oasis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The Edge
    Posts
    189
    Possibly, but it doesn't change the fact that Saddam (first name is easier to spell btw, that's why I use it) was tried under Iraqi law…

    (Name: yes, I get the ei, ie, wrong too. But all Western ‘news’ says “Saddam” too. How wrong is that).


    “Iraqi law”? Read my above. We too far apart on this. It was evil.


    But that doesn't change the fact that Saddam committed crimes.

    Bush and friends, killed 500 000 Iraqi women and children, on purpose. But there’s no one to gerrymander a court to prosecute. Shall we list all the governments that have “committed crimes”?


    It’s just a matter of brute, brutal force. I’m offended by naive soul-salving claims to legality.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The Edge
    Posts
    189
    You didn't read my link because you are not interested in a different point of view...

    No, I didn't read it because I've heard it a hundred times before and each time I hear it, it does a little bit of spiritual damage to me. And I'm damaged enough already.


    This thread wasn't really meant to spark debate, because it inevitably (at least) ends up with this, "read these four hundred pages, and if you don't"...



    You could though, add your own "How wrong was I" political observations.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Masters Degree Numsgil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    708
    The difference between what Saddam did and civilian casualties during the war is that Saddam's soldiers specifically rounded up civilians and killed them firing squad style. When faulty intelligence means you blow up an orphanage instead of an arms depot, that's a tragedy. When you target that orphanage deliberately, that's a crime.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Who wants to know?
    Posts
    589
    Seeing as terrorism is definitely a focal point of the news today, have any of you read/heard about the new terrorist on the rise? His name is Baitullah Mehsud, and he is taking full repsonsibility for many different suicide attacks, and is also the prime suspect for many major incidents, including the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. In fact, Mehsud has gained so much confidence as the "mastermind" behind the various attacks, he has announced that he is targeting the White House, some places in Spain, New York, and London for his next "projects". Mehsud claims that while Saddam was a factor in his discovering his life's calling, it was actually Osama Bin Laden who was his true hero. However, he himself has said that he would like to outshine Bin Laden, and show Pakistan, America, and the rest of the world exactly what he is capable of.

    http://www.time.com/time/specials/20...735532,00.html

    http://news.google.com/news?q=baitul...num=1&ct=title


    Sorry if this deviated too much from the OP's intentions, but I just wanted to put in something I saw on the news today.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Senior Kukhri's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    392
    Quote Originally Posted by Vexer
    Bush and friends, killed 500 000 Iraqi women and children, on purpose.
    You keep picking on Bush and his handling of the sanctions issue. The sanctions began in August, 1990, lasting just under 8 years, during the administration of three U.S. presidents: Bush Sr., Clinton and Bush Jr. In any case the financial and trade embargo was imposed by the United Nations Security Council. The terms of the embargo and items to be blocked from trade were determined by the Security Council sanctions committee. One year after the sanctions took place, it was realized that the civilian population was denied critical supplies so the first "Oil for Food" resolutions were put forward. Iraq would be allowed to trade it's primary export, oil for food and medical supplies. Iraq initially refused, denying it's people this vital aid and the first food shipments did not come until 1998.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kukhri
    You didn't read my link because you are not interested in a different point of view
    Quote Originally Posted by Vexer
    No, I didn't read it because I've heard it a hundred times before and each time I hear it, it does a little bit of spiritual damage to me. And I'm damaged enough already.
    Since you can't be bothered to read a short, single page document I'll give you the gist of it. It was an article about a referendum to re-elect Hussein for the next seven years. He won 100% of the vote. Of 11,445,638 eligible voters, every one voted.
    "Hussein Sinjari of the Iraqi Institute for Democracy told the BBC's World Today programme that 94.5% of 3,500 people questioned were against Saddam Hussein continuing his rule. Some 3.7% had no opinion and just 64 people - 1.8% - were in favour according to the results of the survey in Iraqi Kurdistan, which the organisers said was neutral."

    So this information damages your soul? How so?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vexer
    You could though, add your own "How wrong was I" political observations.
    Good one.
    Co-producer of Red Oasis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The Edge
    Posts
    189
    So no one thinks they've ever been wrong, except me.


    That's comforting.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17 Re: Politics: My Wrong Predictions. 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,114
    Quote Originally Posted by Vexer
    This is a vain emotive note, tossed into the eternally evaporating datasphere, like a frowning leaf down an overflowing sewer.

    I was so sure, and I was so wrong that:

    1. After the Cold War had toned down a bit, Africa could, free (or reduced) of proxy wars, get better. No. It didn’t. So The Cold War was never Africa’s excuse?

    2. We would never murder the democratically elected President Saddam Hussein via a kangaroo court. Never. We did. Boy was I wrong about how low we can go.

    3. Half-Black Obama could never be elected. ‘We’ just weren’t ready. No possible way. Wrong. Boy I was wrong about how high we can go.

    So, I really don’t know. Anything.
    Well, don't feel sorry for yourself.
    All those experts that gambled on the housing market also were wrong.
    So you are not alone.

    Cosmo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    158
    Quote Originally Posted by Vexer
    Kukhri,

    I didn’t read your link because I could guess what it said.


    Saddam was sentenced for the 1982 killing of 148 people in Dujail.”

    When you say, “Saddam” you mean, President Hussein. Why do you use his first name?

    148?

    Are you aware that according to the UN, USA-led trade sanctions ‘directly resulted’ in the deaths of 500 000 Iraqi woman and children? Over the ten years?

    Half a million.

    Should we murder George and Bill?

    (afterthought: who is a very bad man? 500 000).
    Just to add another reason why I feel your logic on the 500,000 deaths of Iraqi civilians cannot be totally blamed on Bush or the United States or even the United Nations. The sanctions set up by the US and the UN were suppose to have a desired effect. That effect was to get the Iraq in line with UN security council resolutions. Saddam Hussein had full power and Authority to stop the sanctions by allowing inspectors full access to all facilities. Regardless of the fact that Iraq ended up possessing no WMD's doesn't mean that they aren't responsible. Saddam Hussein by trying to deceive the world into believing he had more military capability than he really did was also apart of the 500,000 deaths you mention.

    You can't continually blame this entire problem on one person or group of persons. The world and it's problems are almost always too complex to be blamed on one party, so stop trying.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    No single raindrops believes it's responsible for the flood.

    None of the straws in the load feel responsible for breaking the Camel's back.

    How do you deal with the question of assigning blame when 2 or more entities each had the option to prevent something, and each of them chose not to?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,151
    1. After the Cold War had toned down a bit, Africa could, free (or reduced) of proxy wars, get better. No. It didn’t. So The Cold War was never Africa’s excuse?
    Read
    "War is a Racket"
    by Major General Smedley Butler and his speech on Interventionism.
    Exploitation of other countries by an empire to plunder its ressources and its inhabitants isnt anything new though the excuses to justify it changes. War is a Racket should be mandatory reading imo.


    2. We would never murder the democratically elected President Saddam Hussein via a kangaroo court. Never. We did. Boy was I wrong about how low we can go.
    The CIA has assassinated and toppled elected governments time and again, if they put their own citizens interests above those of US corporate mafia they will be the target and replaced by a rubberstamping dictator. But even a dictator or repressive regime thats the US's best friend, the Taliban(who were greeted by the State Dept and Unocal and got millions in US aid), Noriega(drug smuggling kingpin on the CIA payroll) or Saddam, can be discarded like an old shoe if he no longer plays ball or becomes a liability to the corporate mafia running the US.
    Saddam was not trialed in an international court as he should have, and Iraq should not even have been invaded anyway.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    The Edge
    Posts
    189
    Well, yes. But I have, er, 'link's' to three countries, The USA, Australia, and the UK.

    Now I'm a bit ashamed about that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •