On Tue, 16 Dec 2003, Nomen Nescio wrote:
This makes me a bit curious. Tell me, is your opinion then that the U.S. has done nothing questionable here?
No one seems to question certain facts: * Saddam had hundreds of thousands of Iraqis tortured and killed * he used chemical weapons casually, wiping out at least one Kurdish village of several thousand people * he deliberately destroyed the swamp Arabs and the environment that they lived in * his regime treated POWs brutally; few people in Britain will forget the pilot who was badly beaten during the first Gulf War and then displayed on TV; few Americans will forget the wounded POWs interrogated on TV in the second The people on this list are less likely to remember that Saddam's coming to power was marked by the public humiliation and hanging of Americans unfortunate enough to be in Baghdad at the time.
You don't feel that treating a former head of state (regardless of what you happen to think of that person) in this manner and videorecording it AND transmitting it to the entire globe violates the spirit of the convention?
You mean, do I think that it is somehow immoral to have examined him for head lice and then checked his teeth? Well, no. Do I think that the Geneva convention is there to protect bandits, thugs, and tyrants? Well, no. If you read it, the focus is on protecting civilians and captured soldiers from the sort of abuse that Saddam considered normal.
You feel this was the right thing to do? You would have no problem seing a U.S. or European leader being treated the same way?
Hitler, you mean? Or did you have Milosevic in mind? You should try to remember how the US Civil War ended. The armed forces of the South surrendered. Lee handed his sword to Grant. I believe that Grant returned it - and allowed each Southern soldier to keep a rifle and a mule. Lee and the other leaders of the South lived out their lives in peace. There were of course acts of terror on both sides, but on the whole the combatants behaved decently. There was considerable mutual respect, because both sides recognized that the other had behaved honourably. The same cannot be said of Saddam Hussain. The people of the South did not walk in terror of Robert E Lee and Jefferson Davis. The people of the North were not murdered, raped, and tortured by Grant and Lincoln.
I think we do have to take into consideration too that a lot of people (I'm not saying it's the majority or anything but still a lot of people) in some arab countries like Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Saudi Arabia do have some sympathy with Saddam. This has nothing to do with supporting his crimes like the chemical warfare but more general the fact that he was a leader in the region who stood up against U.S. and Israel. Also the Palestinians received a lot of finansial help from Saddam.
Yeah, you're right. I forgot that Saddam paid $25,000 or so to the family of each Palestinian 'soldier' who blew himself up, slaughtering innocent civilians in the sort of attack that the Geneva conventions were designed to prevent. The Palestinian suicide bombers wear no uniforms, they conceal their weapons, they deliberately target civilians. This has nothing to do with the justice for the Palestinians or whether the Israelis are right or wrong. The Geneva conventions, which you seem to be advocating, were established to set limits on the behaviour of combatants in war, to encourage the sort of peaceful resolution that marked the end of the American Civil War. What Saddam wanted was just the opposite. He advertised and paid for routine violations of the Geneva conventions in Israel. He wanted hatred and endless violence.
I don't know, but I have this feeling that just maybe this wasn't the most appropriate way to behave all things considered. This is a tense and volatile region as it is. I think we all should exercise caution and careful considerations and try to not humiliate the pride of the people in this region. Remember that in many cases this is almost all they have left.
The US plan appears to intend to stall until the Iraqis have regained sovereignty and then turn Saddam over to the new government, which will probably follow local practice and execute him. This will please tens of millions of Iraqis. The UK government, which has a long tradition of ignoring the wishes of the British people in regard to capital punishment, will tut-tut. The ex-governor of Texas will doubtless say again that he does not intend to express any personal opinions in the matter -- and smile. I spent several years travelling in that part of the world. From my experience, I think that the people of the region, who are rightfully proud of their heritage, of their traditions and beliefs, will respect the US and the UK more for having shown obviously superior strength, and for having then given way to the wishes of the Iraqi people. -- Jim Dixon jdd@dixons.org tel +44 117 982 0786 mobile +44 797 373 7881 http://xlattice.sourceforge.net p2p communications infrastructure