[thunderous_funker]

Saddamania
by Bill C. Davis

Like a figure you love to hate in Wrestlemania operas, Saddam is a pumped-up hyped reality whose intense wattage is useful to the extent that it gives a patina of heroism to the very people who have given him his star status on the international stage. His resume is downloaded daily – hourly – so that his capture gives honor and morality to the immoral and the dishonorable.

Saddam was a symptom caused by a condition. The condition remains - the symptoms will change names and locations – and the likes of Bush will dress themselves in white and mount the military like a mighty steed and sally forth to distinguish themselves by conquering the reality they themselves helped to create.

The war and occupation lay the groundwork for the next Saddam. Whoever it is will be installed, encouraged and harnessed and he’ll behave until he either gets a vision, a message from God, a delusion of grandeur or a better offer. Then his villainy, which at one point was characterized as an asset, will be billed as intolerable evil.

Saddam needs to be given stature so that Bush as conqueror will also appear to have stature. Saddamania and Wrestlemania use the same marketing tactic: make the villain fabulous so the hero is super heroic. When Bush talks about Saddam he drips with disgust and disdain. His ability to be moved by Saddam’s evil implies that he is the champion not only of the Iraqi people but also of all things good in the world.

It’s easy to join the fever pitch of the fight. It’s not unlike watching a **** fight. You can find yourself rooting for one bird over the other but the nagging question is what am I doing watching and investing in it in the first place.

Bush creates a primitive tug. He prefers you would be ashamed that you would question any tactic that would cause the desired result of bringing down the villain. To Bush, questioning how and who wanted the sociopath to become what he was is as irrelevant as the UN. Bush deals with symptoms not conditions. He sees evil as a proper noun.

Like throwing a piece of red meat to a hungry crowd the capture plays like a blockbuster. It’s irresistible, satisfying and climactic – but the Iraqi narrative will continue. As Michael Ware of Time magazine warns – this is not over – the insurgents, many of whom saw Saddam as a Western creation, care less about the capture and more about the occupation. This occupation they perceive to be a continuation more than an antidote to Saddam.

Saddamania is red hot. His billing is as preemptive as the war itself. The cover of Newsweek and Time bumped Howard Dean and Jesus Christ respectively for the image of the homeless dictator. Like Bush and company those venerable publications know what sells.

[eklipse]

Bush creates a primitive tug. He prefers you would be ashamed that you would question any tactic that would cause the desired result of bringing down the villain. To Bush, questioning how and who wanted the sociopath to become what he was is as irrelevant as the UN. Bush deals with symptoms not conditions. He sees evil as a proper noun.

Yes. Exactly.

Not only that, Bush and others of his ilk have succeeded in creating a public frenzy when it comes to Saddam Hussein and Iraq. Many people hate Saddam with a passion, yet few of them really understand why it is they hate him - they have no real understanding of Iraq's history, it's culture or it's people - they have been indoctrinated by a constant stream of propaganda stretching back over decades.

At a push, some people will point to the Iran-Iraq war, the gassing of the Kurds and the crushing of the Shiites as evidence of Saddam's criminal behavior - as far as they are concerned, these events occurred in a total vacuum. This is essentially the same as saying that 'Bush bombed civilian market-places' and leaving out the entire back-story to the war.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Yes. Exactly.

Not only that, Bush and others of his ilk have succeeded in creating a public frenzy when it comes to Saddam Hussein and Iraq. Many people hate Saddam with a passion, yet few of them really understand why it is they hate him - they have no real understanding of Iraq's history, it's culture or it's people - they have been indoctrinated by a constant stream of propaganda stretching back over decades.

At a push, some people will point to the Iran-Iraq war, the gassing of the Kurds and the crushing of the Shiites as evidence of Saddam's criminal behavior - as far as they are concerned, these events occurred in a total vacuum. This is essentially the same as saying that 'Bush bombed civilian market-places' and leaving out the entire back-story to the war.

Are you trying to say that there is some justification for murdering 300,000 + people? You think context will make it better?

Sorry, this is one of those occasions where you really can cut to the bottom line. The guy is a monster. Period.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Are you trying to say that there is some justification for murdering 300,000 + people? You think context will make it better?

In my opinion, there is no justification for murdering a single person. The context in which anything is done is always important - at least to me.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Are you trying to say that there is some justification for murdering 300,000 + people? You think context will make it better?

Sorry, this is one of those occasions where you really can cut to the bottom line. The guy is a monster. Period.

Careful, Simey. If you cut the civilian deaths out of the context of WWII, what does that mean for the US?

That said, I agree that Saddam Hussein is a monster. The guy was a freaking assassin before he rose to power.

He was a monster, and those who lent him support, whatever the reason, were either fools or fellow monsters.

Good thing they're running the country again.

BlackGriffen

[Face Ache]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Are you trying to say that there is some justification for murdering 300,000 + people? You think context will make it better?

Don't we have an Enola Gay thread around here somewhere?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
Don't we have an Enola Gay thread around here somewhere?

Do you know what murder is?

I didn't even include the victims of Saddam's wars. Only the ones killed in his police state.

[Logic]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Do you know what murder is?

I didn't even include the victims of Saddam's wars. Only the ones killed in his police state.

What do you call deliberately attacking civilians and killing about 100 000 people(if not more) in 24 hours? Not counting the people who died later from radiation and children born with defects because of the radiation. Then we have the cancer rate and the list goes on.

IMO every deliberate attack on civilians is murder, doesn't matter if it is the US, Iraq, Islamic Jihad or Santa Claus. Murder it is.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by Logic:
What do you call deliberately attacking civilians and killing about 100 000 people(if not more) in 24 hours? Not counting the people who died later from radiation and children born with defects because of the radiation. Then we have the cancer rate and the list goes on.

IMO every deliberate attack on civilians is murder, doesn't matter if it is the US, Iraq, Islamic Jihad or Santa Claus. Murder it is.

Exact figures, including a comparison to casualties from the firebombing of tokyo.

BG

Edit: thought I should add Hamburg and Dresden

Fires merged with existing fires unleashing a firestorm with temperatures reaching 1,800 degrees F (980 C) and winds up to 150 mph (240 km/h.) - enough to uproot trees and set asphalt streets ablaze. There was no defense against this and even those in bomb shelters were not safe as many suffocated to death or were incinerated in the intense heat. Again on the 29th of July and the 2nd of August British bombers returned and hit the city. The nine day aerial assault left Hamburg and its residents devastated. About 50,000 perished in the bombing while nearly half of the city's buildings were destroyed or heavily damaged, almost 10 square miles of Hamburg lay in ruins. A million refugees fled the city and word of the Die Katastrophe spread throughout Germany.
[...]
Dresden burned for seven days and eight nights with 70% of the city destroyed. When it was over there were literally not enough able-bodied people to bury the dead and fearing the spread of disease the center of Dresden was closed off and the bodies burned. The number of people who died in the attack will never be known but estimates start at 32,000 and go as high as 135,000.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Logic:
What do you call . . .

It doesn't matter what I call it. Are you seriously going to say that Truman was no different from Saddam, or that their actions were the same?

There is a point where moral equivalency becomes absurd.

[Logic]

These are your words:

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Are you trying to say that there is some justification for murdering 300,000 + people? You think context will make it better?

So where is the line for having justification for killing innocent civilians on purpose? Is it if you kill 50k, 100k, 200k or 300k? Does time have anything to say?

IMO people who willingly target civilians are murderers and monsters. Doesn't matter who it is.

So yes, when it comes to comparing SH and this decision made by Truman I would say they are both monsters.

This just once again shows how selective you are when it comes to condemning acts or persons.......

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Logic:
These are your words:


So where is the line for having justification for killing innocent civilians on purpose? Is it if you kill 50k, 100k, 200k or 300k? Does time have anything to say?

IMO people who willingly target civilians are murderers and monsters. Doesn't matter who it is.

So yes, when it comes to comparing SH and this decision made by Truman I would say they are both monsters.

This just once again shows how selective you are when it comes to condemning acts or persons.......

As I say, there is a point where moral equivalency becomes absurd.

Saddam killed civilians in torture chambers. No that is not like killing in a world war -- even if that killing was of a type that would normally be condemned. World War II was a total war. Of course it is different from the despotism of a police state.

If you want to say that the two are equivalent, and that, say, firebombing Dresden was no different to stuffing children in an Aushwitz gas oven, then I guess you are entitled to that opinion. But I think it is bankrupt.

[Logic]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
As I say, there is a point where moral equivalency becomes absurd.

Like I asked where is that line? At what point does the slaughter of civilians become acceptable in your opinion?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Logic:
Like I asked where is that line? At what point does the slaughter of civilians become acceptable in your opinion?

How about when you find yourself unwillingly thrust into world war against fascist countries bent on world domination?

You are not seriously going to take the Axis side in the Second World War, are you? Isn't that taking sticking up for the underdog a bit far?

[Logic]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
How about when you find yourself unwillingly thrust into world war against fascist countries bent on world domination?

You are not seriously going to take the Axis side in the Second World War, are you? Isn't that taking sticking up for the underdog a bit far?

So you think it is acceptable to target civilians even if you know that tens of thousands of innocent civilians will die? You think it is acceptable that the prime target of a devastating attack are civilians? I'm beginning to understand it a lot better how these "unfortunate" civilian deaths occur wherever the US military sets foot.

Am I understanding you correctly?

And please stop this black and white BS. I'm not siding with the Axis, how you got that into your head I really don't get........

[Shaddim]

"Yes. Exactly.

Not only that, Saddam and others of his ilk have succeeded in creating a public frenzy when it comes to President Bush and the U.S.. Many people hate Bush with a passion, yet few of them really understand why it is they hate him - they have no real understanding of U.S. history, it's culture or it's people - they have been indoctrinated by a constant stream of propaganda stretching back over decades."


Saddam practiced genocide against his own people, we have documented cases of him personally raping and torturing prisoners, and has flaunted his untouchable status to everyone he could reach. He's no longer human, and as such, should be dealt with in the most expedient way.

Like I asked where is that line? At what point does the slaughter of civilians become acceptable in your opinion?

Slaughter? So we lined them up and brutally tortured and murdered them? Hell no. Do you really not see the difference between coincidental death and deliberate cruelty? I regret that any innocents should die, but I don't feel any guilt, malice is the key. Innocent Germans, Japanese, and Italians died in WWII, and the cost was high, but the result was worthwhile at twice the price.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Are you trying to say that there is some justification for murdering 300,000 + people?

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Are you seriously going to say that Truman was no different from Saddam, or that their actions were the same?

On the one hand, you appear disgusted that so many people were killed under Saddam. OK, fine, so do most. But then when you talk about the deaths that occurred at the hands of Truman, suddenly there is a difference?

Interesting. No, wait....disturbing.

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
I regret that any innocents should die, but I don't feel any guilt, malice is the key. Innocent Germans, Japanese, and Italians died in WWII, and the cost was high, but the result was worthwhile at twice the price.

Take heart! You are not the only one who feels this way about the cost of achieving an end:

The Sunday Times, March 24, 2002:
According to trial documents, the satellite telephone (bin Laden's) was bought in 1996 with the help of Dr Saad al Fagih, 45, a bearded surgeon who heads the London-based Movement for Islamic Reform in Arabia. This fundamentalist Muslim group is dedicated to the overthrow of the Saudi Arabian government but is not part of Al-Qaeda. Al Fagih, who has been regularly used by the BBC as an expert on Bin Laden, has in the past explained that Muslim scholars said the killing of civilians, including children, was allowed by the Koran as "collateral damage" in the holy war.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
On the one hand, you appear disgusted that so many people were killed under Saddam. OK, fine, so do most. But then when you talk about the deaths that occurred at the hands of Truman, suddenly there is a difference?

Interesting. No, wait....disturbing.

Yes, there is a difference. What's disturbing is that YOU don't see it. Actually, what's disturbing is that you WON'T see it. As I said before, it's all about intent

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by MacNStein:
Yes, there is a difference. What's disturbing is that YOU don't see it. Actually, what's disturbing is that you WON'T see it. As I said before, it's all about intent

I understand the point you are trying to make, but I disagree with it.
If you are dead, you're dead.
The intent of the one who caused your death is irrelevant at that point and only serves to assuage the psyche of the person who pulls the trigger.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I understand the point you are trying to make, but I disagree with it.
If you are dead, you're dead.
The intent of the one who caused your death is irrelevant at that point and only serves to assuage the psyche of the person who pulls the trigger.

I, again, disagree. Intent, to me, is more important. Killing isn't the same as murder or slaughter, that's the reason the legal system is written the way it is.

[itai195]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
On the one hand, you appear disgusted that so many people were killed under Saddam. OK, fine, so do most. But then when you talk about the deaths that occurred at the hands of Truman, suddenly there is a difference?

Interesting. No, wait....disturbing.

Lets take context into account at least a little bit, please. Even if one thinks the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war crimes, the reality is that taken in context of WW2 the moral judgement is debatable... if you don't think so, check out the Enola Gay thread and see the variety of opinions. It was a different world sixty years ago, and Truman's decisions were made within the context of that time.

On the other hand, there is no context in which Saddam's actions can be viewed as morally admissible. He brutalized his own population to serve nothing but his own self-interest. Like you said, most everyone agrees about that.

It doesn't look like Simey said context doesn't matter -- he mereley said that context doesn't make Saddam's case any better.

[thunderous_funker]

It would seem that wholesale slaughter is permissable as long as you've got a good reason. Dresden is ok because the allies had to demoralize Germany. Hiroshima is ok because we had to demoralize Japan.

So what were Saddam's "good reasons"?

Saddam was fighting to preserve civilization from communists, radical Islamists and terrorists. He is single-handedly responsible for holding Iraq together as a nation against myriad separatist forces. Not only that, but he single-handedly prevented the take-over of Taliban-esque medievalists.

In fact, it is precisely because Saddam was ruthlessly effecient at killing all the right people that he was so handsomely rewarded by the West. Our committment to preserving Iraq's territoriality, stablity and relative modernization extended well into the 1990's and was the primary reason that the insurrections of 1991 were allowed to fail.

We preferred a whole and economically compliant Iraq--even under that monster Saddam--over a splintering of tribal states or the emergence of a anti-west theocracy.

Even in post-Saddam Iraq, the issues of territoriality and continued economic compliance are unquestioned truisms for whatever form of self-determination emerges. Kurdish independence is off the table. So is one man:one vote to please the Shias.

In short, Iraq will only be allowed to continue as it was. Our "idealism" is limited to the hope is that this is possible with some form of benevolent governance (as long as it is committed to econimic compliance and keeping Iraq whole), but if that isn't possible than a suitable strongman will be found to continue in Saddam's bloody footprints.

After all, we're fighting for civilization against the forces of evil. Iraq must be kept whole and oil must flow. Nothing else is acceptible, even if the people living there desire it.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
It would seem that wholesale slaughter is permissable as long as you've got a good reason. Dresden is ok because the allies had to demoralize Germany. Hiroshima is ok because we had to demoralize Japan.

So what were Saddam's "good reasons"?

Saddam was fighting to preserve civilization from communists, radical Islamists and terrorists. He is single-handedly responsible for holding Iraq together as a nation against myriad separatist forces. Not only that, but he single-handedly prevented the take-over of Taliban-esque medievalists.

In fact, it is precisely because Saddam was ruthlessly effecient at killing all the right people that he was so handsomely rewarded by the West. Our committment to preserving Iraq's territoriality, stablity and relative modernization extended well into the 1990's and was the primary reason that the insurrections of 1991 were allowed to fail.

We preferred a whole and economically compliant Iraq--even under that monster Saddam--over a splintering of tribal states or the emergence of a anti-west theocracy.

Even in post-Saddam Iraq, the issues of territoriality and continued economic compliance are unquestioned truisms for whatever form of self-determination emerges. Kurdish independence is off the table. So is one man:one vote to please the Shias.

In short, Iraq will only be allowed to continue as it was. Our "idealism" is limited to the hope is that this is possible with some form of benevolent governance (as long as it is committed to econimic compliance and keeping Iraq whole), but if that isn't possible than a suitable strongman will be found to continue in Saddam's bloody footprints.

After all, we're fighting for civilization against the forces of evil. Iraq must be kept whole and oil must flow. Nothing else is acceptible, even if the people living there desire it.