Saddam's Execution

[achebeautiful]

I promise not to tell anyone, Paula....no one would believe me anyway! LOL

"First let me say I really don't think that was the President's thinking, but I know we will never agree on that issue. There are so many "ruthless dictators" that America can not fight all those battles."

Okay, fair enough, Paula. Exactly what DO you believe is the reason behind the President's thinking? Do you believe that he allowed the Trade Centers to be hit by airplanes, as some have accused, so that he would have an excuse to go to war? Did he do it for oil, as many continue to proclaim? Was it to exact revenge for attempting an assassination on his daddy's life, another claim that many spread around without any known evidence to support it. I'm fine with the fact that you disagree, but please tell us why?

As far as having so many ruthless dictators that we cannot go after all of them, I again disagree! Yes we can, and must, if we hope to continue living the lives we live. These things have to be done in stages, and very stragtegically, but the fight must be fought. I do not think that we should stop going after violent, drug dealing gang members just because there are also a lot of bank robbers and rapists, and there are too many battles to fight to continue to keep our streets safe! Nor do I think we can ignore threats just because there are a lot of them coming from many corners of the world.

"The best we can do is, as a united world, keep them in check and not fuel their fires. But first we have to be a united world."

How do you propose that we keep them in check, Paula?

Not fuel their fires? Twelve years of bombing our embassies, naval ships, and finally flying planes into the WTC, and WE started the fire? They have been saying "death to the West" for years now, and WE are the ones who are blamed for being inciteful. Amazing!

You say, Paula, that the first thing we have to do is be a united world. I say, the thing we need to do is lead the way, and if the world chooses not to follow, then so be it!

You have not answered my question: "for all of the criticism of the United States, what hope is there for the West if they lose this struggle? What will it mean for Europe, for Canada, for Israel?"

[achebeautiful]

In response to what Leona has stated, I have difficulty too with Bush's statements about either being for us or against us, but not for the same reasons that you do. I struggle with it because once you say something like that, you are obliged to back it up. That's a hard thing to do, because adjustments are always being made. Sometimes you wind up skaking hands with those you are not fully in agreement with because it is the lesser of two evils to do so, and advantageous to the nation at the time.

I continue to pose the question: "for all of the criticism of the United States, what hope is there for the West if they lose this struggle? What will it mean for Europe, for Canada, for Israel?"

[ocelot]

You say, Paula, that the first thing we have to do is be a united world. I say, the thing we need to do is lead the way, and if the world chooses not to follow, then so be it!

I'm answering Paula's question but that's gotten the US in alot of trouble already. It's ruined their relationships with alot of countries and the more they procede with decisions that the rest of the world doesn't agree with the closer they become to being looked on as terrorists under the label of a country. Alot of people consider Bush a terrorist (more so in Europe than in North America). If the US wants to be treated like they have been treating countries like Iran and Syria than for all means procede.

Not fuel their fires? Twelve years of bombing our embassies, naval ships, and finally flying planes into the WTC, and WE started the fire? They have been saying "death to the West" for years now, and WE are the ones who are blmaed for being inciteful. Amazing!

She didn't say the US started the fire. She said that the US is adding fuel to the fire. I absolutely agree with her. The problem with the way that the US is fighting the war against the Islamic terrorists is that they are proceding without a huge respect for the religion. The followers of Islam tend to be very passionate about their religion and when you do things to "insult" their religion you are adding fuel to the fire. A fire without fuel will burn out but if you add fuel and add wood the fire will keep burning. The way that the US has operated is that every once in awhile they have added fuel to the fire and have not taken away the wood that keeps the fire burning. With the terrorists, they don't control a country so you can't go in there and just rid them of the power they have, so when you do things to create anger against the West/Developed countries you fuel the fire. When anger is created the terrorists are able to recruit more and gain support.

[achebeautiful]

If the US wants to be treated like they have been treating countries like Iran and Syria than for all means procede.

Is this to say Leona that you believe that the U.S. is mistreating Iran and Syria? Wait, let me add this, known- to- be- funding- and-aiding- terrorism Iran and Syria. Furthermore, that knowledge is known worldwide.

Alot of people consider Bush a terrorist (more so in Europe than in North America).

Leona, do you think that Bush is a terrost?

[ocelot]

My concern is for the pride of the Bush Administration they don't seem give much up into doing it as the world would like it done. For their fights in the world they put too much on doing it the US's way. They have even told Turkey to not go after terrorists that they (Turkey) wanted to go after.

[ocelot]

Turkey Warns Iraq: PKK will be Danger for Iraq too"

Sunday , 14 May 2006

Turkish Foreign Ministry Spokesman Namik Tan
when he was reminded of statements of Iraqi President Jalal Talabani who said that the United States (US) assured Iraqi authorities that Turkey would not conduct cross-border operation (into Iraq), stressed that Turkey made its own decisions.

``We (Turkey) take every kind of measure regarding our country`s security. Those who made these statements should be pleased with Turkey`s fight against terrorist organization PKK. There is a serious power vacuum in the north of Iraq currently and terrorist organization PKK exploits this vacuum,`` Tan underlined.

``If this situation continues, PKK will also be a big threat for Iraq. It is necessary to highlight that Turkey has no secret agenda regarding any of its neighbors and it does not have any intention of exploiting current vacuum in Iraq with different purposes, either,`` he stressed.

Asked whether Turkey asked for information from the U.S. or Iraq regarding statements of Talabani, Tan noted, ``we have a clear attitude. It does not necessitate any information from some other countries.``

PKK has armed bases and it uses these bases to attack Turkish targets. PKK is a terrorist organization according to the EU, US, Turkey and UK laws. The US had promised to remov ethe PKK terrorist camps. Yet no concrete step has been taken.

[ocelot]

I recently (within the last month) saw a special about how the Turkey wants to send their military to flush out the PKK but the US told them not to. At that point Turkey was extremely frustated because the PKK was terroring their citizens and the US would neither deal with the PKK or let Turkey deal with them. The US is at risk of losing their most loyal ally in the region because Turkey is about to go in there themselves.

[achebeautiful]

They have even told Turkey to not go after terrorists that they (Turkey) wanted to go after.

I agree with you, Leona. Sometimes I get very frustrated with this kind of thing. Especially when Bush says that you are either for us or against us. I realize that the region is very volitile, and that there are probably good reasons why the U.S. does the things they do, but it is very frustrating trying to figure some of it out.

[lapayin]

OK you two are too fast.

"Exactly what DO you believe is the reason behind the President's thinking? Do you believe that he allowed the Trade Centers to be hit by airplanes, as some have accused, so that he would have an excuse to go to war?"

I do not believe that Bush had anything to do with the Trade Center being hit by planes. That was Al Qaeda. As a matter of fact I was impressed with the way he communicated, to the country, to calm the fears that were running rampant. He did a good job. I believe he was very concerned and saddened. I was very happy when he sent troops into Afghanistan to track the scum down. I do believe he used that tragedy for his own personal reasons for invading Iraq. The Iraqis did not fly the planes into the Trade Center buildings. I believe he did go into Iraq for revenge, oil, to save face (not being able to capture Bin Laden) and to spread Democracy. The planes hitting the WTC was not planned as an excuse to go to war - going to war in Iraq was a byproduct of it.

If we have to go into every country with a ruthless dictator or government that harbors terrorist then why aren't we in Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, North Korea, Africa etc? Where were we during the Rwanda genocide? I feel we should decide our battles based on national security (Al Qaeda was national security - Iraq was not) and our allies asking for help. During a tragedy like Rwana I feel the world should respond - not just the U.S. But they will not help us if we keep pissing them off. By that I mean each country has a right to make desicions based on their own needs. We can be mad at them but when we ridicule them for disagreeing with us why would they want to help us?

Fueling the fire - Leona said it all (high five Leona). I would just add that when we use rhetoric like "axis of evil" that does nothing to solve problems. Name calling is bullying.

"How do you propose that we keep them in check, Paula?" - That is a hard one. In America we do not arrest people for what they are thinking of doing. I guess the best answer to that would be a united world watching every movement of suspected terrorist (that does not mean tapping everyone's phones).

I agree with you that the U.S. should take the lead. If we have good relations with other countries and the cause is just they will follow.

"You have not answered my question: 'for all of the criticism of the United States, what hope is there for the West if they lose this struggle? What will it mean for Europe, for Canada, for Israel?' "

My personal opinion is, if we lose this struggle the terrorists become stronger and more confident and we learn a very difficult lesson. If problems come out of it for Europe, Israel and Canada then they will have to get involved and we should be there to help in any way we can. I hope we don't lose this struggle but I feel it will never go away. Even if we nuke Iraq it will only lessen the problems for now only to errupt later. If I had all the answers to these perennial problems I could be president. LOL But let me end with a unique suggestion. Why don't we try to find out why the Middle East is so upset with the U.S.?

[achebeautiful]

Hey Paula! You're not aloud to high five with Leona.....that is ganging up on me! LOL

[ocelot]

Why don't we try to find out why the Middle East is so upset with the U.S.?

I remember after 9/11 I tried to find out this answer. I read quite a bunch books on terrorism (some I threw away after reading them because they were so biased) and I started on Osama Bin Laden's biography (I didn't finish it). Alot of their reasons are religion based on crimes they consider the US committed against Islam and the lack of morals that they consider the Western world has. After reading what I did makes me see that an action that someone does may not feel like a big deal but if you go into the country without knowledge of the country's religion you can do huge damage (and get into alot of trouble). I can remember examples but I don't want to get the facts wrong, so I'll leave them for now.

If you are in another country it's important to respect the major religions of that country (important to research that) because things that may seem fine to you may be extremely insulting to them.

[achebeautiful]

Leona, this is exactly where you and I fundamentally disagree on this whole issue. By your statement, you are admitting that you believe that the U.S. is disrespecting the religion, culture and customs of the people of Iraq. I believe that the U.S. is there for as long as they are simply because they ARE respecting them!

Al Jazeera would have the world believe that we are mistreating and disrespecting their ways. They play an abuse here or there over and over as if it happens all the time. The world is so willing to believe it all. But time after time after time, people who visit there and are honest in their assessment admit that we are very respectful to their religious observations and customs.

Other than the abuse that gets repeated attention at Abu Graib, the prisoners we hold are fed the food that they observe according to their beliefs. They are allowed copies of the Qu'ran, and blankets to kneel on for praying.

The reason we are in Iraq right now is to help bring stability to their new government. Their new government WANTS us there! We are not there to change their religion, their culture, or their customs. The new Iraqi government is forming their own democracy according to those things that they hold dear. We are there to help foster those things.

Recently the Pope made a speech at a university where he stated that radical Islam does not allow dialogue, and that if there is to be any hope for tolerance among religions they would have to change that. Radical Islamists took such offense to his speech that some of them called for his assassination! Isn't that exactly the point the Pope was making? And yet, the world continues to sympathize with the propoganda machine of the Radical Islamists.

To fully understand why Islam hates the U.S. so much, you have to go back much further than recent times. As a matter of fact, you have to go back even before there ever was a United States! Thousands of years! It was the Western Culture, led largely by Christianity, that paved the way for freedom, success, and innovation based on Scriptural principles. Christianity led to schools, universities, hospitals, inventions, economic successes, end to slavery, individualism, and thriving in almost all areas of one's life. No other culture on the planet came close to what the West was forging. Europe was flourishing while China, Islam, and Greece were stagnant.

Years later, the United States has become the leader of the West....the Free World. Thus, we are looked upon as The great Satan. That is not to mean that all of Western civilization is not hated, because it is. It just means that the U.S. is the "Darth Vader" of the West (in their eyes.)

But the U.S. is in Iraq and is welcomed there by their new government. Hand in hand, they are working to bring democracy to the land. The U.S. is not there to change the Iraqi's religion, culture or customs.....and they are not there to disrespect it either.

[lapayin]

Let me return a favor Leona.

I do not believe Leona is saying "that the U.S. is disrespecting the religion, culture and customs of the people of Iraq." I believe what she is saying is that, based on some books she read, that is what some Islamic terrorists believe and that is partially why they hate the U.S.

"I believe that the U.S. is there for as long as they are simply because they ARE respecting them!" I disagree with that statement. I feel we started this because of a Bush administraion agenda and now we can't get out without losing face. I believe we truly want the new Iraqi government to work. And I believe our troops are working very hard to make that happen. I really hope they succeed and the Iraqi people will finally have peace.

Unfortunately in times of war disrespect thrives. Abu Graib was not the only incident. And thanks to the media we know about them. Now I know you can not always trust the media and they do overkill the news. They look for ratings and not neccesarily the truth.

But I think we over generalize here. There are people who do disrespect others for their differences but not the majority. And there are radicals who threaten people for making statements they do not like but not the majority. And for every soldier who committed a crime there are hundreds who are trying their best to solve a grave problem. They are putting their lives on the line so others may know freedom.

Leona is correct. You have to be careful with other people's culture. I remember a story about Dan Quail (I think). He was in another country and gave someone the V for victory sign. But in that country it meant something totally different and was an insult.

[ocelot]

The problem with the US is that they go into a country going by their standards (including religion, and culture) and expect that that standard is the same there, while the rest of the world if they go into someone else's country with caution and try to fit into the new country's culture and religion as best as they can. As far as governments, they often look into the country's religion and culture before and try to do their job the best they can while working with the country's religion and culture. An example of this was when the US was in Saudi Arabia (not sure the year) they went many places there which was considered holy land (where Muhammad walked) and it is insulting to Muslims if non-Muslimswalk those places. Now this might seem a very little thing but it can really insulting to Muslims. It's important to know some of the important aspects of the culture and religion of the country you are in because things that may seem normal or fine to you may really insult them.

The problem with the way the US is operating in Iraq is that so much is being judged by American values and American standards. Part of this is that the US is using combat troops for peacekeeping. The combat troops don't have the right attitude needed for peacekeeping, because they are combat troops, they aren't as respectful towards the citizens of Iraq as troops that are trained for peacekeeping and rebuilding (which the US doesn't have). To see an example of the country embracing the peacekeeping troops look at Afghanistan and the Canadian peacekeeping troops. Because the troops' attitude wasn't right it made a lot of Iraqis distrustful about if the US was really there for them or if they were there for revenge. things like this can make a big difference in the way a country is perceived.

The problem with what has happened in the US's Iraqi prisons is that the US is doing things by their standards. There are certain things that are very insulting and degrading to Muslims that don't seem very bad to non-muslims, but they can turn a standard practice into a worst possible treatment practice. This is due to ignorance of culture or intentional degrading of people of a certain belief.

"I believe that the U.S. is there for as long as they are simply because they ARE respecting them!"

I partially agree with that statement. The US is respecting the Iraqis by staying in Iraq, but they aren't doing it in a way that makes the Iraqi people feel respected. I don't doubt that the US is doing what they believe is right and that they truly care for the Iraqi people but they are not going about it the way that they should, there are many ways that they could do the Iraqi people better. Partly, if they brought in troops that are better suited for the current mission in Iraq instead of those that are better suited for combat.

One thing is to separate the government and the Iraqi people. There are Islamic countries that the governments get along with the US but the people "hate" the US. I don't think that the democracy that Iraq comes up with will be the US's vision but it will be interesting to see.

The respect issue is a very hard issue. I believe that the US is respecting the Iraqi people in their own way but I don't think that respect is complete. To me this is more of an ignorance standpoint than lack of respect.

[achebeautiful]

"Iraqi Arrested In Saddam Hanging Video"
~ STEVEN R. HURST, Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq — An Iraqi official announced on Wednesday the arrest of a witness to Saddam Hussein's hanging who allegedly recorded the event on a cell phone camera, while an adviser to the prime minister said two guards present were in custody. A U.S. military spokesman, meanwhile, said the tumultuous execution would have gone differently had the Americans been in charge.

Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell also said that Saddam had been dignified and courteous to his American jailers to the moment when he was handed over to the Iraqis outside the execution chamber. The spokesman said no Americans were present for the hanging.

The leaked and unauthorized cell phone video, in which some of those present can be heard to taunt Saddam in the final moments of his life, set off an uproar both inside and outside Iraq.

The storm of criticism prompted the U.S. to publicly distance itself and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki to launch the investigation that led to Wednesday's detentions.

"In the past few hours, the government has arrested the person who videotaped Saddam's execution. He was an official who supervised the execution and now he is under investigation," said a key al-Maliki adviser, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to release the information.

Sami al-Askeri, a Shiite lawmaker who also advises al-Maliki, said two "Justice Ministry guards were being questioned. The investigation committee is interrogating the men. If it is found that any official was involved he will face legal measures."

Joining Caldwell in his criticism of the hanging, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said U.S. officials had questioned conducting the execution on a Muslim festival day and as well as some procedures.

U.S. Embassy spokesman Lou Fintor said Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and his diplomatic team "did engage the government of Iraq on issues relating to procedures involved in the timing of the execution (of Saddam), given the upcoming holy days. While the government of Iraq gave consideration to U.S. concerns, all decisions made regarding the execution were Iraqi decisions based on their own considerations."

Also Wednesday, Iraqi and Arab media and a government official said preparations were under way to hang two of Saddam Hussein's co-defendants in the next few days, but the details still have to be worked out with the American military.

A Cabinet official, speaking anonymously because of the sensitivity of the information, said the two men would hang "at the beginning of next week."

Caldwell said those executions, like Saddam's, were the responsibility of the Iraqi government. "It's a sovereign nation. It's their system. They make those decisions."

Saddam's half brother Barzan Ibrahim, a former intelligence chief, and Awad Hamed al-Bandar, the former chief justice of the Revolutionary Court, were originally scheduled to hang with Saddam. But their execution was delayed until after Islam's Eid al-Adha holiday, which ended Wednesday for Iraq's majority Shiites.

In Washington, a lawyer for Bandar asked Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to block the U.S. military from transferring custody of the condemned man to Iraqi authorities. U.S. courts have so far declined to intervene.

U.N.'s human rights chief Louise Arbour appealed to Iraqi President Jalal Talabani to prevent the execution of Ibrahim and al-Bandar, saying she was concerned with "the fairness and impartiality" of their trials.

As the hanging video swirled, Mowaffak al-Rubaie, the Iraqi national security adviser and a close ally of al-Maliki, hotly denied that he was involved in taking video of the execution. He spoke to CNN after the announcement of the arrest of the unnamed official in connection with the case.

The New York Times reported Wednesday, citing a prosecutor in the Saddam trial present at the execution, that al-Rubaie had recorded the execution with a cell phone.

Al-Rubaie said neither he nor any other Iraqi official had shot and leaked the video to Al-Jazeera television and Web sites. Instead, he suggested Sunni insurgents infiltrated the guard force and took the pictures.

According to the Times, Munqith al-Faroon, the prosecutor, told the newspaper "one of two men he had seen holding a cell phone camera aloft to make a video of Mr. Hussein's last moments up to and past the point where he fell through the trapdoor was Mowaffak al-Rubaie, Mr. Maliki's national security adviser."

But Al-Faroon, in an interview with The Associated Press, denied the report. "I am not accusing Mowaffak al-Rubaie, and I did not see him taking pictures," he said.

"But I saw two of the government officials who were...present during the execution taking all the video of the execution, using the lights that were there for the official taping of the execution," he added in a phone interview. "They used mobile phone cameras. I do not know their names, but I would remember their faces."

On its Web site, the Times later noted denials by al-Rubaie and al-Faroon.

As the storm over the handling of the execution gained strength, Caldwell was among several U.S. officials who suggested displeasure with the conduct of the execution.

"If you are asking me: 'Would we have done things differently?' Yes, we would have. But that's not our decision. That's the government of Iraq's decision," Caldwell said.

Saddam, Ibrahim and al-Bandar were sentenced to death for the 1982 killings of 148 Shiite Muslims in the town of Dujail, north of Baghdad, after a failed assassination plot against Saddam. They were convicted on Nov. 5, and the verdict was upheld by an appeals court on Dec. 26.

Saddam was hanged in Baghdad's Shiite neighborhood of Kazamiyah. During his regime, Saddam had numerous dissidents and opponents executed in the facility, located in a neighborhood that is home to the Iraqi capital's most important Shiite shrine — the Imam Kazim shrine.

As he faced his own death on the gallows, Caldwell said, Saddam "was courteous, as he always had been, to his U.S. military police guards."

The spokesman said Saddam's demeanor changed "at the prison facility when the Iraqi guards were assuming control of him, but he was still dignified toward us.

"He spoke very well to our military police, as he always had. And when getting off there at the prison site, he said farewell to his interpreter.

"He thanked the military police squad, the lieutenant, the squad leader, the medical doctor we had present, and the colonel that was on site."