You're cheering because Saddam is 'caught' Why?

  1. A lot of people are saying "Yay, Saddam is 'caught', great". But why? What is your reson for cheering?

    Sure, he was a nasty guy. So are many others. Is your reason for cheering based on emotion, law, justice, or what?

    Right now, Idi Amin sits happy and fat in Saudi Arabia, the country which spawned most of the 9/11 hijackers and a major ally of the USA.

    George Bush Junior was ultimately responsible for the executions of 152 citizens while governor of Texas. He also was ultimately responsible for the deaths of over 8000 Iraqi civilians during the invasion. This from a government which refused to join the ICC.

    Robert Mugabe sits happy on his stolen seat of power, playing at being a mini-Hitler, and nobody is chasing him down.

    Something like twenty million people in the USA live in poverty, and the country has one quarter of the world's prison population. Yet Bush blew a fortune on a war which profits only a handful of people, including the former CEO of Halliburton, Dick Cheney. Why isn't this money being used to help the homeless in the USA?

    In short: By what measure do you judge it a good thing that Saddam was hunted in his own country after an illegal invasion, and taken into the custody of a state which does things like Camp X-Ray?



    PS: Don't go whinging that I am a Saddam supporter. I'm not. I have made no mention in this post of my own personal opinion of the man. I don't intend to. I wish to know your rationale regarding international law and justice.
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Njorl

    Njorl 875
    Science Advisor

    If Saddam staying on the run meant:

    -Idi Amin were deported to Uganda to be tried by his countrymen.

    -Those behind the 9/11 attack were exposed and punished.

    -The Death penalty were either abolished or at least applied more fairly.

    -Robert Mugabe were thrown out of office and an elected liberal democracy were installed.

    -Poverty was eliminated.

    -Prisons actually rehabilitated prisoners and returned them functionally to society.

    I'd be all for Saddam staying on the run. But it wouldn't mean any of that. So I'm glad he was caught. It might make the Iraqi people a little more secure in creating a good government. It might also make the religious fundamentalists a little more willing to be violently opposed to Americans, now that they are sure they won't get Saddam back. I'm hoping the former is true, but not the latter.

    Njorl
     
  4. Shooting your neighbour's dog won't accomplish those things either. Is it then a good idea to shoot your neighbour's dog, simply because it won't accomplish those things?

    Ie: You have said "Saddam in custody is good because Saddam out of custody won't solve A, B, and C." In fact neither Saddam in or out of custody solves A, B, or C. So him being in custody has absolutely no bearing on A, B, or C. Thus A, B, and C, can not be used as arguments for Saddam being in custody. So what justifies the activity and expense we have seen?

    Well, I certainly hope Iraq eventually gets something good out of this.
     
  5. the capture of Saddam is really the only notably good thing to have come of all of this sofar. granted, it doesn't change all the other crap; but i see no reason to be anything but happy about his caputre.
     
  6. GENIERE

    GENIERE 288
    Science Advisor

    Adam – Perhaps you will enlighten me.

    You state “illegal Invasion” which implies there exists, somewhere, a law proscribing one nation from invading another. Please provide a reference for my edification.
     
  7. chroot

    chroot 10,426
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Pity, you're the one who used them first.

    - Warren
     
  8. russ_watters

    Staff: Mentor

    [?] [?] You win the "most bizarre thing I've read all day" award, Adam. Maybe you misread Njorl's post (I hope).

    Adam, you answered your first two questions with the sentence that immediately followed them.
     
  9. United Nation Charter, Chapter 1, Article 2:

    Part 1: "The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members."

    Part 3: "All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered."

    Part 4: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

    There is of course Chapter 7, but that is irrelecent since the SC did not make any such decision.
     
  10. Tell that to Hitler,Moussileni,And Milosevich. If we had stayed to the strict letter of the law, you might very well be speaking german right now, JA? And put Saddamn in the same category as the other 3. I think the world can agree that Saddam was a horrible leader. And if we went after another horrible leader, we'd be getting flack for not going after Saddam. So it's a catch 22. We take it one day at a time.
     
  11. Apparently you and the other fellow just didn't get it. I will explain.

    There are many bad things going on in the world. I gave a list of just a few such things.

    Capturing Saddam Hussein, or not capturing him, either way, has absolutely no effect on any of those bad things going on in the world.

    Applying resources and effort to capturing Saddam Hussein does nothing whatsoever to fix any of those bad things going on.

    Therefore, is capturing Saddam Hussein in any way important? If so, how?

    Given the other problems in the world, what do you see as the justification for invading Iraq and removing its ruler? Should such resources and effort as were devoted to this exercise instead be devoted to other things, such as those on the list?

    Now, someone said "I'd be all for Saddam staying on the run. But it wouldn't mean any of that. So I'm glad he was caught." Follow the bouncing ball. You have two base states:

    1) Invade Iraq and go after Saddam.
    2) Don't invade Iraq and go after Saddam.

    1 involves use of resources and effort.
    2 doesn't.

    Therefore, if it does not matter to the person who responded whether Saddam is caught or not, 2 is the best option, because it expends less resources and effort.

    Now, given that 2 is the preferable option, why go into Iraq?
     
  12. Zantra

    Two of those were before the United Nations.

    The third was dragged into the streets by his own people after a combined campaign. Question: Was Milosevich the head of a member state of the UN?

    Not at all. Once again, the UN did not exist at that time. And in fact it was Germany's breach of the law which caused the international reaction.

    I agree Saddam Hussein was a horrible leader. Unlike with the first two, the UN now exists. And the UN requires a Security Council decision to attack a member state. That decision did not happen. Thus the invasion was illegal.

    I disagree. I think if the USA government followed the laws they have agreed to, there would be much less flack.
     
  13. Phobos

    Phobos 2,020
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Because it brings us another step closer to being done.
    Because it means he won't get back into power.
    Because it gives the new government a better chance at success.
    Because he will be brought to trial for his crimes.
    Because it provides some hope that the ongoing guerrilla war will lessen.

    Even if you disagree with the war, that's already a done deal, so it seems better to have him in custody rather than out there as an unknown. Even countries that opposed the war expressed relief that he was caught.
     
  14. Phobos

    Phobos 2,020
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    It's not an either-or situation. There can be efforts against Saddam and others at the same time. It doesn't have to be all or nothing.
     
  15. chroot

    chroot 10,426
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    So you think the resources should have been used to deal with another of the "bad things" on your list, eh? Why? Let's say there are ten "bad things" going on -- and we stop one of them. Why is that not a step in the right direction?

    You don't seem to understand that Saddam was one of the bad things going on.

    - Warren
     
  16. Re: Re: You're cheering because Saddam is 'caught'... Why?

    Question: All good reasons, given that the war did happen. But do you think it should have happened at all? Or perhaps after things within the USA were fixed?
     
  17. Re: Re: You're cheering because Saddam is 'caught'... Why?

    Fair enough.
     
  18. chroot

    You are not paying attention. I did not say that. I am asking the question, about peoples' priorities.

    Fair enough. I agree, as I have said many times, Saddam Hussein was a nasty guy. Once again, I am asking about priorities.

    I understand quite a lot. Can you answer the question, about why that, then? Why not other things now, and that thing later? Was it justified given other requirements?
     
  19. chroot

    chroot 10,426
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Re: chroot

    You have repeatedly implied that feel Saddam should not have been a first priority. Why don't you share that reasoning first?

    It's sad, but true, that I cannot speak for my government. The administration may, or may not, have had good reason to suspect Iraq was a threat. The whole story is honestly not available to the citizens quite yet.

    - Warren
     
  20. Re: Re: Re: You're cheering because Saddam is 'caught'... Why?

    But this isn't what your original question asked. You have been been given an answer to what it was you wanted to know yet are not content.
     
  21. GENIERE

    GENIERE 288
    Science Advisor

    Adam, I ask for laws, you provide me with principles and purposes of the UN Charter. As the US is a member of the UN, you may make the argument that the US violated the principles and purposes of the UN Charter, but not any supposed law. I can argue that the US and all its coalition allies acted it a manner consistent with the charter, while a few members of the UN Security Council did not.

    My government interpreted UN Resolution 1441 to mean it directed the UN to retaliate against the regime of Saddam Hussein and remove him from power. I agree with the interpretation, your government agreed. You, obviously disagree.

    If your argument were correct, than the UN was obligated under its charter to retaliate, by pacifist or military measures, against all offending nations, including Australia. Obviously no such retaliation occurred. A response to that could be that the UN lacked the means to retaliate against the economic and military might of the US, and certainly not against the entire coalition. It could also be that a resolution to retaliate against the coalition nations could not possibly be passed, so no member state brought it to the floor.

    One thing that we can probably agree on is that the UN is quite useless as a peacemaking organization.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thead via email, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Similar discussions for: You're cheering because Saddam is 'caught' Why?
Loading...