Hah! Which Saddam did they execute, one of his surgical clones or the real one? I bet it was one of the clones and the real Saddam is spending his days in a secret retirement home somewhere.
Read this:
“At the same time, the Iraqi leader is reported to make wide use of look-alikes to take his place at public events. The look-alikes not only fulfill some of his duties, their public appearances also hide the Iraqi leader’s true whereabouts.
Falih Abdul Jabbar, a sociologist and researcher at London University in England, says the Iraqi public has long known Saddam employs look-alikes. He says the public has become adept at trying to detect which Saddam — the real one or a stand-in — comes to official ceremonies:
“People noticed that when the other guy, or ‘the second Saddam,’ was there, they could detect this very easily by looking at the bodyguards, who seemed careless, sometimes even laughing. They wouldn’t do that in the presence of the real Saddam.”
He continues: “Another observation by the public was that Saddam is very well-known among the Iraqis to be a camera-monger. He loves the camera and to be in close-up shots. And they notice that when the other guy, his ‘spare part,’ as they call him, [was there], the cameras would take faraway shots, rather than zoom in. Hence they would deduce this is not the real Saddam.”
Experts say that apart from the way the bodyguards and the cameramen behave, there is often little way for the public to detect which Saddam is before them. The reason is that the doubles — who are chosen from among men who closely look like the president — have undergone extensive plastic surgery to further refine the resemblance. One man, Abdul-Latif, defected from Iraq in the mid-1990s after years working as a double for Saddam’s son Uday. He said he fled partly to avoid undergoing yet another painful operation to make him even more closely resemble his master.
In an effort to learn more about Saddam’s use of doubles, the German public television station ZDF recently asked a forensic specialist to make a scientific study of some 30 films of the Iraqi president taken from 1988 to late last month. The expert, Dieter Buhmann of the Institute of Forensic Medicine at Saarland University in Homburg/Saar, found that the pictures reveal there are as many as three Saddam doubles who regularly take the president’s place.”
Read the full article here:
http://www.rferl.org/features/2002/10/09102002155130.asp
Posted by hedagem at January 2, 2007 03:02 PM
Lest you miss it, Mr. Margolis has another article in the Archives between this one and the previous one on Cuba.
Posted by Weary at January 2, 2007 04:24 PM
Eric:
“But he was no Stalin. Just a horrid Arab dictator” and I’ve always considered Stalin as just a horrid Russian dictator!
I thought the American Nurse’s observations were pretty eloquent… and portrayed a Saddam quite different than the one Bush would have liked. Tending a weed garden, feeding birds with scraps of bread, and being sympathetic to his nurse’s personal problems… and keeping Saddam healthy, just to kill him! Hope he hasn’t gotten into any grief for his candid remarks.
I thought one of the only solutions for Iraq was that Saddam be involved in discussions for a unified Iraq, alas, this cannot happen now. Unfortunately, I cannot picture an Iraq that is not at war with itself unless the common enemy is the Americans… there has to be a change in focus. The Iraqi’s have lost an opportunity to fix their country.
Posted by dikcoates at January 2, 2007 05:05 PM
Dictato’ do whut he done - wipe out and to’ture dissident. Whut de surprise dat he now dig hang? So’s whut ya’ wants’ Bush t’hang too now? You’s gots’ta dig it dat Democracy, even at its most evil ain’t dictato’ship. Jes hang loose, brud and look at Russia. You’s talk smack and whut ya’ dig? Dart fum umbrella o’ whiff uh polonium? Ain’t no dictato’ship deir so’s no hangin Putin.
Posted by reggie007 at January 2, 2007 07:22 PM
Everything Eric says this week is right on the money. Except add that Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, et al. were also strong backers of Saddam’s war against Iran. And now Iraq is the chief battleground between U.S. ally Saudi Arabia and U.S. enemy Iran.
In his use of lookalikes, as in his use of poison gas against the Kurds, Saddam followed the example not of Stalin but of Churchill, who was often too drunk to give a speech or make an appearance.
Posted by hyperbolus at January 2, 2007 09:55 PM
Thanks Weary! I would’ve missed it!
Posted by D. Canuck at January 3, 2007 04:28 PM
yes, Saddam’s hanging was the outcome of a kangaroo court.. however, this staged drama is merely another in a long line of fabricated justice when required..
the “when required” is the key..
while the Soviet system’s rigged justice apparatus was more extensive, the American model is no less efficient for being more focused
whether it’s prosecuting native-americans, blacks, various minorities, political enemies, etc. etc. , you see the same type of kangaroo court prevailing
nothing new here
Posted by Evan Palmer at January 3, 2007 06:44 PM
Everyone supported Saddam in the 1980s! Let me clarify that: every politician did. Average citizens did not and would not have wanted to. Thus the execution of Saddam looks more like a mafioso hit to silence a potential squealer. And the leaders of all our countries - politicians and captains of industry - are the mafia.
The sad thing is that these people do operate with our blessing. We simply disconnect from it all and pretend to not have blood on our hands.
Posted by Paul Whiteside at January 4, 2007 08:43 AM
Thank you Paul! It wasn’t just the politicians, after the Hostage Crisis many average people back in the 1980’s were glad to see anyone killing Iranians.
I remember the hand wringing when Schindler’s List came out. The masses said “how could this have happened?” and then those very same people said “Oh those people are always killing each other” when faced with Rwanda.
These things can only happen when honest people do nothing (but complain). Look in the mirror.
Posted by D. Canuck at January 4, 2007 04:06 PM
You can be tried in Iraq, tried in the Hague, tried in the United States. But the one place I can’t find on my map is Absentia.
(jeez, a hanging can be a real buzz kill)
DCanuck
Posted by D. Canuck at January 4, 2007 04:22 PM
When someone has to say “No one can accuse me of sympathy for Saddam,” it means he’s feeling defensive over his sympathy for Saddam.
There’s nothing new here in Mr. Margolis’ latest rant. He would have us believe that since the U.S. and Great Britain did some shady things decades ago, we therefore should not support the democratically elected government of Iraq when it puts an Iraqi dictator on trial and executes him for slaughtering fellow Iraqis. Better to let the “world court” handle it – after all, Germany, Italy, Belgium and all of the other countries in Europe have such spotless historical records.
With the execution of this murdering dictator, we have taken another step in the direction of President Bush’s vision for a peaceful, democratic and self-governing Middle East – and his opponents just can’t stand it.
Posted by jkwilson at January 4, 2007 07:35 PM
D. Canuck: I believe Absentia is somewhere in the Cayman Islands, or Switzerland, or some other such place.
Posted by hyperbolus at January 4, 2007 08:56 PM
“we have taken another step in the direction of President Bush’s vision for a peaceful, democratic and self-governing Middle East – and his opponents just can’t stand it.”
jkwilson:
If you share the vision of that moron Bush you are either just as deluded or simply as malevolent as he is, do yourself a favour give your head a shake. Better yet, stick your tongue in an electrical outlet and after if your head clears you can maybe discern reality a bit better.
Posted by oldfan at January 4, 2007 09:55 PM
Two points here:
1) The flip side to the Saddam execution is the perspective of the families of his victims. It is preferable to have it over and done with rather than have it dragging on for years in den Hague.
2) Iraq is NOT a democracy. It is a country under occupation and you cannot have free and fair elections when foreign troops, armed to the teeth, are running the country.
Posted by Paul Whiteside at January 4, 2007 10:32 PM
> Nor has media reporting that under Saddam, Iraq became the Arab World’s most industrialized
> nation, a leader in women’s rights, medical care, education, and public projects.
Almost no one in the west is willing to admit it, but Saddam and the Ba’ath party were the face of modernism in Iraq. This, in fact, is part of the basis for the antipathy which al-Qaeda has expressed towards the Ba’athists. The Ba’athist version of modernism may not have satisfied the expectations of the west, but one has to acknowledge Iraq’s history and culture. The Ba’athists inherited a society with centuries long traditions of tribalism and honour killings: traditions so entrenched that they have perverted the intentions and teachings of the prophet Mohammed.
In Saddam’s Iraq, women enjoyed as close to equality as one can find in the Arab world. The same was true for Christians. The Ba’athists did not oppress people on the basis of their religion; instead, they oppressed those who posed a real or perceived political threat. In contrast, the current de facto powers-that-be in Iraq kill simply on the basis of a person’s religious beliefs or a person’s failure to conform to a very narrow-minded interpretation of Islam. This does not constitute an improvement.
The so-called “democratically elected government of Iraq” has allowed the country to slide back into medievalism. The blind obedience of jkwilson to the misguided policies of the neo-fascist Bush-Cheney regime is so pathetic that it is truly laughable.
Posted by R. A. Hicks at January 4, 2007 11:56 PM
… yes- “laughable” until we realize just how correct Hicks is. These are dreadful times (as is the entire historical tragedy of humankind).
The pervasiveness of neo-liberal ideas and instituions along with their brand of capitalism or economic policies (a.k.a. “globalization”) are alltogether an immanent threat to any chance for an acceptly viable and huamne future.
The hanging of Saddam Hussein amidst the occupation of Iraq, Afghanistan, and the current build up to hostilities with Iran are part of a global crisis that faces each citizen of the world.
Neo-liberalism, gaining strength in the 80’s, seeks to carve up the world into several fronts of conflict. They are creating the reality of their self-prophecy of a an oversimpified world engaged in conflict on several fronts (think Samuel Huntingtion “Clash of Civizaltions”- His oversimplified view of the world is US policy today).
We are faced with the increasingly polarization of rich and poor in the world. Issues are complex and blurry and best.
What is unimistakingly clear, however, is that the US is and her neo-liberal friends are caught in an end-game situation.
THe circus trial and hanging of Saddam Hussein exemplified to the world the simple and misguided nature of American foreign policy and inadequacy.
They can not sustain such exploitive and cruel measures indefinately.
Posted by Joshua at January 5, 2007 12:20 AM
“There’s nothing new here in Mr. Margolis’ latest rant. […] we therefore should not support the democratically elected government of Iraq when it puts an Iraqi dictator on trial and executes him for slaughtering fellow Iraqis.”
You people who drink out of the same well Bush drinks out of… have any of you been paying attention? Erudite conservatives (many of whom are not subject to electoral pressure) are coming out of the woodwork proclaiming that Iraq is the most expensive disaster in modern U.S history. None of the justifications for the war proved true, and now, all of Bush’s hopes for a ‘democracy’ lie bleeding in the sand. Yet you people still run around proclaiming victory… I have a flight suit and a carrier to sell you if you believe any of that swill. Even “America at the Crossroads” (A Neocon manifesto) did not envision or even conceive of the current disaster that you proclaim is an emerging “peaceful, democratic and self-governing Middle East – and his opponents just can’t stand it.”
Then again, only neocon crazies and a governor of Texas could proclaim with a straight face that an execution, or another of hundreds of deaths, is a ‘milestone’ for a country widely recognized as among the most corrupt, violent, and disordered nations in the world.
Tell me that you are not so foolish to imagine that the ‘elected’ government of Iraq has any real power to deny a directive from Washington, or that it acts as a sovereign. Who trains Iraqi ‘troops’ and police? Who is the largest military presence in the country? Can you name the one power in Iraq whose continued intercession is the only thing keeping the current government (which is little more than a figurehead body kowtowing to Shiite militias and ayatollahs) alive? Let me give you hint; it isn’t the Iraqi security forces.
The Iraqi government, such as it is, is nothing more than a laundering operation for America’s dirty work. Since we can’t execute Saddam ourselves, we turn him over to a puppet government, which in turn hands him over to a Shiite militia, for execution. After spectacle is broadcast for the world to see, we commend then shadow government of Iraq for their steadfastness, even as hundreds more die in the streets daily from car bombs, IEDs, and open warfare.
Saddam was executed because he knew things that were dangerous to Bush. He may have been a terrible guy, but he had a lot of important information that died with him. His death served no purpose, and his execution in Eid was no milestone; forget justice; this was aking to a mob hit against a prize witness. If the Iraqi courts were so concerned about justice, they would have put him on trial for all the other massacres he was responsible for. Of course, talking about those would dredge up uncomfortable reminders of Western complicity in Saddam’s brutality. Most inconvenient…
Another point on fair trials and due process; one interesting read for all of you Neocons fanatics is Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s “Gulag Archipelago.” Make note, in particular, of the methods employed by Soviet interrogators in forcing confessions from confused detainees. After you are done reading it, compare those methods to those outlined in a recent FBI report that has surfaced about prisoner ‘mistreatment’ in Guantanamo. Compare it also to known interrogation tactics used by American soldiers, and subsequently uncovered through the Abu Ghraib investigation. Finally, compare the reasoning of Soviet Secret police, and justifications for incarceration under Soviet Article 58, with the justifications promulgated by the Bush administration under the Use of Force Authorization. The similarities are eerie.
Posted by chatman at January 5, 2007 04:33 AM
Nice post, oldfan. Classy!
Don’t you often chide others for not adding to the brilliant discussions going on here?
Welcome to the board, jkwilson! You alternative viewpoint will be respected by all!
Paging Joshua:
OT, but you said something in the Castro thread that blew my mind:
“His suppression of disenters is understandable since his government is socialist.”
This is among the most callous things I’ve ever read on this board, which is quite a feat. You’re a hypocrite of the worst order. Nobody deserves to be jailed and/or “disappeared” for having an alternative view. Shame on you.
Posted by Bino at January 5, 2007 08:50 AM
R.A. Hicks touches on the most important mistake regarding the Middle East. There used to be a secular movement in the region, beginning with Nasser. But it was a Nationalist and Socialist movement in places like Syria and Iraq and this was unacceptable to the West. Whether it was unacceptable because it was nationalistic or because those nations were enemies of Israel is hard to say - likely a bit of both.
Thus with the failure of communism to deliver much need change in the Middle East, the people are turning to Islamic Fundamentalism. Yet in spite of this clear trend, the Americans have their sights set on the last bastions of secularism - Iraq(now delivered into the hands of the fundamentalists) and Syria. Still stuck in the 1980s!
Posted by Paul Whiteside at January 5, 2007 09:12 AM
The only independent Iraqi politician is al Sadr and the US is bringing in 20,000 more troops to take him out.
Posted by Paul Whiteside at January 5, 2007 09:13 AM
Joshua - one more thing on Cuba - you claim “What pricks America’s pride the most is that the quality of life in Cuba is leaps and bounds better than the quality of life of millions of Americans”
Really? By what measure?
Per the 2006 UN Human Development Index (which factors in everything from life expectancy to literacy rate, school enrollment, education index, health care spending, and a million other things) Cuba is way, way, way behind the Americans in every single possible category. I mean, not even close.
Or do you define “quality of life” as the ability to be jailed for being a political dissident?
Posted by Bino at January 5, 2007 09:19 AM
Good article on the disgusting exhibit that was Saddam’s hanging:
http://www.slate.com/id/2156776/
Posted by Bino at January 5, 2007 09:29 AM
Actually Bino you are right IN A WAY for once.
But you have to analyze the data in minutia. The number of overly wealthy Americans raises the bar for them, but not to the extent that a mega-rich nation like the U.S. might be able to. The amount of poverty and desperation that millions of Americans face with no relief coming from the government is unparralleled; millions of people live at or below third world levels with no access to quality education or medicine which each Cuban recieves.
Now, consider the effects of American blockades on Cuba which has severely undermined Cuba’s ability to perfom even better in the UN index.
With the smallest of fractions of America’s wealth, Cuba perfoms quite well and could do better without American imperial interference. The goal in Cuba is REAL equality and not a mythological one that the U.S. constructs.
Cuban success is a threat to the social and economic ideologies which are at the very core of the idea of “America”. This is why the U.S. invest so much. They can not allow a state to succeed under a socialist government; especially under a socialist government that has defied U.S. intervention for so long.
While the US is exported bombs, landmines, and the like, Cuba is exporting doctors and teachers.
Long live the revolution!
Posted by Joshua at January 5, 2007 10:24 AM
Yes, let’s all be dirt poor…together! Hail socialism! We’re all equally devoid of opportunity! Excellent! And if we rail on about it, we can be made to “disappear”! Awesome! “His suppression of dissidents is understandable”, after all.
“Real equality”, you say? Where we’re all equally dependent on the state to take care of us? Sorry. I strongly prefer a meritocracy. I don’t need to be a welfare recipient, dependent on the government for every thing in my life from cradle to grave.
Posted by Bino at January 5, 2007 10:38 AM
Sorry Bino, it seems you are not reading my entire posts, otherwise you would not quote my lines without including my entire argument.
I will try to clarify it for you again briefly. In the future, if you are not sure of what you are reading just simply ask.
I am quick to deride Castro’s persecution of homosexuals and other marginalized groups; this is just bigotry.
Hoever, the critics of Castro’s imprisonment of political dissenters is not a simple issue of free speech and political freedom.
The US and Cuban exiled capitalists (many Cubans in the US support Castro, but we do not hear from them) invest a great deal of money, people and energy into creating instability and anything that will destabilize Castro’s government. Socialists are villified in the name of “freedon” which is an euphemism for a kind of freedom which has more to do with capitalism and the freedom to pit one person against another over wealth with little government involvement in persons well-being (neo-liberalism).
In order to continue to exist under such circumstances, Castro and Cuba must defend themselves in a war of propaganda. If they do not defend themselves, then this small chance in the world for a people to embrace, protect, and ensure their cultural independence free of American overlords, the IMF, and the World Bank (devastaing instutions) will be gone forever.
If Castro fails to protect Cuba from becoming another subsidary of America Inc.; if he fails to protect them from becoming a nation “in the service”, then Cuba is finished as a people and as a culture.
Can you not undertand, Bino, the desperation in the world today to be free of the chains of American exploitation? People do not want to spend their lives working 16 hour days for a few cents per hour and no bathroom breaks so you buy shit for a decent, competitive price.
People in Cuba and all over the world (and my Cuban friends) love Castro because he tries; he tries against the odds and he has already won in history.
Posted by Joshua at January 5, 2007 10:44 AM
I thought it went without saying that Castro’s persecution of gays is immoral. If you feel as though you need to be commended for stating the obvious, well, good for you, buddy.
I love your rationalization of political suppression/jailing. Hey, it’s not like you are rotting in a a cell, right?
I remember getting off the plane in Cuba, seeing a huge “Socialism or Death!” sign. Sounds fun!
Viva whatever I’m allowed to cheer for and down with whatever the government has decided is bad for me!
Posted by Bino at January 5, 2007 10:52 AM
Final thought Joshua – Voting in Canada is fun because I see the Conservatives, Liberals, NDP, Greens, Communist Party and the Socialist Party and all sorts of other folks on my ballot. We, collectively, get to make a choice and individually express our wants.
Voting in Cuba doesn’t exist. Period. You’ve been told how you will live. Period.
Doesn’t sound much like freedom to me.
Posted by Bino at January 5, 2007 10:56 AM
Bino and Joshua:
Read this on the Cuban dissident issue:
http://www.counterpunch.org/landau05022003.html
Posted by Weary at January 5, 2007 01:04 PM
The U.S. also has a long history of jailing political dissidents. Here are a few of the various laws promulgated in the U.S. along these lines. The Patriot Act is simply the latest incarnation.
Alien and Sedition Act of 1798:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alien_and_Sedition_Acts
Smith Act of 1940:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Act
Patriot Act of 2001:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act
Posted by Weary at January 5, 2007 02:22 PM
Bino:
Your remarks are right on the money. I noted Joshua’s comments in the Cuba article, and was appalled by his justifications for political imprisonment. Any government that must jail dissenters en masse because they might be subversive does not deserve to survive. Or, put another way, a system of government should be robust enough to handle the challenges posed by a free press, regardless of what entities might control that press. I also contend that capitalist control of a free press, and free speech at large, are not the same thing. In Cuba, neither exists.
Posted by chatman at January 5, 2007 04:12 PM
I never said Castro’s actions were good or bad. I said they were merely defendable because there was no other way to defend themselves from ONE PARTICULAR and SPECIFIC WEAPON.
I am sorry some of my examples (and they are merely examples) are obvious to you Bino. I am trying to make complex points in brief posting without writing an entire book.
You are ignoring my entire main argument and attacking it from a peripheral angle.
I suppose Cuba should just surrender then and give up hope of being free of the exploitive measures the U.S. holds other nations and peoples with.
In addition, I value equality and the right to live to see your adult years over the Western myth of free speach and democracy.
Just because you get to vote for one of a few white, Christian, business men does not mean you have a say or a choice.
Castro does bad things as we all do. I am merely discussing what I see are the great things he has done.
Unfortunately, the world does not fit into a bubble gum machine and the argument. There is no right or wrong- moral or immoral. These are all culturally and socially constructed entities.
How many Cubans want to work 16 hour days for a few cents an hour to make shit you can buy on the cheap?
Posted by Joshua at January 5, 2007 09:29 PM
Any sucka who dinks dat Hussein wuz hanged cuz’ he knowed tings dat could incriminate Bush be an idiot. Fust uh all if Bush wants’ed Hussein wasted dey would jus slipped him sump’n in his drink and blamed some heald condishun.
De reason dey decided t’hang him plum befo’e da damn big Muslim holiday wuz t’drow some message t’Islam. De message be simple. You’s mess wid Christianity and we start t’hang yo’ leader. Israel always target radical Islam terro’ists and now big Geo’ge gots realized dat dey kin do de same ‘sept dey do it by law not by pin point missle.
Yo it’s real simple but some uh ya’ gots nodin’ betta’ to do dan try t’make America out t’be da damn villain. We da damn numba’ 1 country in de wo’ld. ah’ guess ya’ gonna say we poo’ cuz we gots 800+ trillion in debt.
Well every powerful country gots debt and big debts. Look it up fo’ yo’self befo’e ya’ start spoutin’ shit about America bein’ poo’. We numba’ 1 rememba’ dat. ah’ duzn’t say Bush be puh’fect but at least he dig it de ‘esistence and significance uh a global religious assault by radical Islam.
At least he recognize whut 18d century philosophers said when dey pontificate dat future wars would be fought upside booze and oda’ natural resources. Today we fight Iraq and Iran t’get deir oil. We need it but we need clean air mo’e.
In 30 years we fight countries t’snatch deir booze supplies. It’s always been dis way ya’ all plum duzn’t see furda’ dan yo’ damn keybo’ds.
Posted by reggie007 at January 5, 2007 09:58 PM
Joshua makes an important point: at least Castro tried. The whole point of the Monroe Doctrine and America’s dominance of Latin America is to keep the population in poverty and never try any change which might improve their lives. As imperfect as they are, men like Castro, Chavez and Morales do try to make a positive difference.
I may be wrong but I take Joshua’s other point to be that Castro is not all good or all bad. There’s a bit of both in him as there is in all of us. Sorry if that upsets the typecasting of Castro as pure Evil.
Posted by Paul Whiteside at January 5, 2007 11:58 PM
Bino, you mention Canada and elections and in theory it’s a great point. In reality it’s a joke. The Green Party? Sorry but they suffer greater oppression than anyone in Cuba as the Canadian media suppresses anything about them. As for the other parties, the ignorance and apathy of Canadian voters renders any choice meaningless. What’s an intelligent voter to do when the brainwashed masses trump his one vote every time?
At least we have more parties than the Americans. More choice? No it’s all the same choice - morally the lowest characters of all our western societies.
So please stop knocking Cuba for not being a democracy. We have a democracy here and we’ve ruined it. We’re in no position to lecture anyone else.
Posted by Paul Whiteside at January 6, 2007 12:04 AM
What is all this about “democracy”. How can true democracy in this world exist when the average person follows like mice to the pied piper. Any person with a sufficient bankroll can convince most people in any country of whatever they want. It just happens that the capitalists and not the socialists (except Chavez) have the money (and hence the media). That said, how can you expect the average person (especially in North America) to actually comprehend and weight the pros and cons of foreign and national affairs when they are working 10-14 hours a day (both man/woman, or woman/woman or man/man - whatever your prefence happens to be nowadays!). Who has time to read about the issues. And where can they read balanced opinions and decide what is actually a fact and what is fiction.
This is a “weary” world we live in. I am not sure how it will get better.
Posted by guesswho at January 6, 2007 01:00 AM
“Any sucka who dinks dat Hussein wuz hanged cuz’ he knowed tings dat could incriminate Bush be an idiot. Fust uh all if Bush wants’ed Hussein wasted dey would jus slipped him sump’n in his drink and blamed some heald condishun.”
You’re wrong; putting Saddam on trial for selected massacres, and getting him out of the before trying him for others was a gamble; the administration hoped that his capture and trial would give Iraq closure and give the American public reason to support the war. If it did, even damaging information might not attenuate the effect of giving the dictator ‘justice.’
If Saddam were assassinated in prison, there would be endless suspicion, especially given our military’s now known history of abusing prisoners.
In the end, this gamble, like all Iraqi wagers, failed; Saddam’s capture and trial did little to bolster public support for the war, and he was quickly becoming an inconvenience. Today, a simple execution has done more harm than good, and the Bush administration is rightly perceived as being party to a politically motivated lynching by a covey of Shiite thugs.
“Yo it’s real simple but some uh ya’ gots nodin’ betta’ to do dan try t’make America out t’be da damn villain. We da damn numba’ 1 country in de wo’ld. ah’ guess ya’ gonna say we poo’ cuz we gots 800+ trillion in debt.”
We don’t have $800 trillion; it’s closer to $8.3 trillion. And if you think that’s not a lot of money, again, I have a flight suit to sell you. Our foreign exchange reserves are smaller than India’s, China’s, and even Pakistan’s. We could buy China, India, and Japan with the value of our debt. Conversely, the Chinese could buy the UK’s GDP for a year with the extra cash in its foreign exchange.
You don’t think a deficit running at almost 70% of the GDP is a problem? Every dollar spent in this country is money we don’t have; the value of the dollar is propped up by nothing more than the world’s faith in our solvency and our bayonets. As to the latter, the Iraq war has demonstrated quite conclusively that American military power is not indomitable. And solvency? Our economy grows at half the rate of India and less than half the rate of China; the Chinese own over a billion dollars of our debt; if they ever decided to sell their U.S treasury bonds, they could sink the U.S Sixth and Seventh fleets without firing a shot. If the Japanese were hit by a tsunami tomorrow and called in our debt to them, the pentagon would go without funding for almost three years. In spite of such peril, this government recklessly continues to spend hundreds of billions of dollars into the red, relying only on the assurances manifest in your false jingoism.
“In 30 years we fight countries t’snatch deir booze supplies. It’s always been dis way ya’ all plum duzn’t see furda’ dan yo’ damn keybo’ds.”
We had secured the energy supplies we needed through political machination; the military option was unnecessary, because Israel already exists as an outpost to project America’s imperial power.
I believe it was Vespasian who once said that deploying Rome’s legions was the least desirable of any political act; better to secure resources and power through peaceful diplomacy and threat of deployment than actual deployment. Once an army is mired in the dirty business of war, the illusion of invincibility is shattered and threat of force is attenuated by the realities of vulnerability. That’s what is happening in Iraq; what is universally considered to be the most powerful war machine on the planet kowtows to the demands of a black-robed cleric with bad teeth and following of hastily armed twenty-somethings. After almost $400 billion in investment, we have not secured a dime in oil profits. Tell me, please, what is it that we snatched from those people, and how do we, as Americans, profit from our new brand of imperialism?
Posted by chatman at January 6, 2007 04:03 AM
“In addition, I value equality and the right to live to see your adult years over the Western myth of free speach and democracy.”
I’m sorry you think free speech is a ‘Western Myth.’ In making your core argument, you are so hell bent on defaming our notion of free speech as illusory that your central argument is discredited. Explain to me, exactly, how our notions of free speech are ‘a myth?’ Because capitalists control the media? Does capitalist control of the media prevent me from posting on this blog without fear of reprisal by my government? What about starting my own blog, publishing my articles in peer-reviewed journals, or submitting articles to the purveyors of the ‘capitalist machine?’
Sorry, but as it stands, your critique of free speech doesn’t hold a lot of water.
“Just because you get to vote for one of a few white, Christian, business men does not mean you have a say or a choice.”
Again, a generalization that does not apply to all of us. We get to vote for white Christians most of the time because they comprise 80% of the population. But I assure you that, in my district alone, I’ve had the opportunity to vote for minority candidates from other other backgrounds. Only recently in Minnesota, an African American Muslim was elected to the house. Your rage against American intervention in Cuba has led you to, in my view, use poor generalizations to buttress your analysis.
Again, any government that must, on a large scale, repress subversive speech to survive does not deserve to exist. I have no idea whether Castro is a villain or not, and I could care less. His use of THIS particular weapon, the repression of free speech, is inexcusable, regardless of any other saintly things he may have done during his tenure in Cuba.
May any such revolution whither and die in the place where it was born…
Posted by chatman at January 6, 2007 04:14 AM
Bino - you are still stinking up this post. I hereby nominate you as the hands down winner of the Margolis Blog Loser Award. The best contribution you can make is nothing.
I was going to excuse myself for my crankiness but frankly U have had enough of this twerp.
Posted by shazam at January 6, 2007 12:52 PM
Obviously I have had enough of the infant’s rants.
Posted by shazam at January 6, 2007 12:53 PM
“Bino - you are still stinking up this post.”
I disagree, In making these comments, you are the one stinking up the post. Why comment when you can’t do so constructively?
Posted by chatman at January 6, 2007 02:00 PM
Bino… I don’t know about the development index, but I know that the infant mortality rate for Cuba has for decades been lower than the US and that both are considerably higher than Canada due largely to our socialized medicare… same with Cuba. Cuba has one of the lowest infant mortality rates in the western hemisphere… I would use this as one of the main measures of conditions within a country.
A recurring response in one of the Toronto Globe and Mail threads on the Cuban Blockade… recently a boycott in Norway of the Hilton hotels due to their banning of Cubans in Norway… was that the blockade prevented Americans from visiting a wonderful vacation place and ruining it for the others…
Posted by dikcoates at January 6, 2007 02:27 PM
I feel like I should clarify something here, about Saddam and women’s rights:
Under the early years of Saddam’s regime, women in Iraq had considerably more rights than they did in most (if not all) other Arab countries. This is true. HOWEVER, after the Persian Gulf War, this all changed. Saddam suppressed women’s rights as a way to appease his increasingly discontent (and largely fundamentalist) Shiite majority. Economic sanctions also took its toll on the Iraqi educational infrastructure. The literacy rate for women, which was once around 90 percent (high, Middle East standards), dropped to less than 50 percent (low, Middle Eastern standards) BEFORE the recent US invasion. Now, Iraqi women are among the most illiterate in the Arab world. This occurred WHILE SADDAM WAS STILL IN POWER (albeit with help from sanctions…however, keep in mind that the literacy rate for women dropped more dramatically than the men’s literacy rate, so sanctions alone probably can’t explain this). Furthermore, many of the gains in women’s rights in Iraq occurred in the relatively privileged, educated, Sunni upper class. Rape by Saddam’s forces was frequent in many Kurdish and Shiite areas.
Don’t get me wrong —- I was opposed to the war. However, it’s just as easy to exaggerate Saddam’s good qualities as it is to exaggerate his bad qualities.
And about Cuba’s infant mortality rate; true, it’s low. However, keep in mind that Cuba has one of the highest abortion rates in the entire world. That said, I think we should end sanctions against Cuba. I think sanctions are ineffective and immoral. I also think US intervention in Cuba has been, for the most part, stupid.
- muff
Posted by muff at January 6, 2007 03:33 PM
Having access to the internet is not the same as free speech.
Communication in the modern age of nation states and global politics is about power. Ideas about who we are and what our values are
are influenced, shaped, and disemminated through channels of mass communication. You or I do not have the capability to reach millions of
viewers on a daily, weekly, or even a monthly basis. The only communication that counts is mass communication. However, this may change and I hope it does. But as long
the most poular internet sites are pornography, shopping, entertainment and the like. Blogger wedsites, chat rooms, and forums such as this are not having the kind of massive social affects that
corporate media has. THey are a way for people like us to vent and talk amongst ourselves, but we are not changing any minds here; just asserting ourselves in a relateively infornal forum. Im not going to change Bino’s mind about anything and he or she will not convince me of anyhthing.
Control of the media is crucial in any political and social struggle. In this regard our free speech is meaningless. I can tell people to take a hike; I can flip the bird and spout racial slurrs, but
I can not have my own network or influentiual newspaper without permission (licensing) and money- a lot of it.
I never said some of Castro’s actions are excusable. I said they are defendable; arguably- it is arguable. He will have to face his demons someday as any leader does- no government is infallable and without bloodless hands.
Not Saddams, not Bush’s, not Castro’s. I simply detest and refuse to accept the U.S. claim to moral superiority on the basis of their brutal campaigns to rob, plunder, and undermine the selfdetermination of people around the globe in the name of “freedom” and “democracy” which are two words that carry no weight any longer.
Why do you think the world (and I am talking about local communities not offical states) silently applauded the attacks on the world trade centre? Communities all over Africa, South America, Asia, South Asia, South East Asia, Oceania responded with shock, dismay, and cautious applause. They are tired of being exploited and kept down by the empire.
For the record, I STRONGLY disapprove of the attacks.
I think it is important to acknowledge the phenomenal amount of approval and the ways in which Osama became a global hero in order to make sense of it. I have seen young persons everywhere wearing the t-shirts and not just Islamists. All walks of life. My colleague was in Kenya when this happended and related to me the quiet approval of the attacks.
In this post 9/11 era. We can no longer talk about democracy, freedom, free speech in the same vague and aggrandizing way. We must be concerned with poverty and violence. Poverty as an act of violence and violence as an effect of poverty; poverty, not as a natural and unavoidable occurance, but as an action and weapon wielded upon the majority of the world by state policies, media control, and the corporations that are leading the charge.
Posted by Joshua at January 6, 2007 04:21 PM
Well said Joshua. The “democracy” that is “spread” by the US is a fallacy or a facade. The ability of a few to own the mass media to influence people is new to this age and effectively eliminates true democracy to flourish.
You are correct in your assertion that the 10 or 12 of us that blog here are only venting and can not influence the masses. In North America, there is freedom of speech, as long as your voice is not too loud or you have deep pockets and get licensed by the government to run a mass media outlet. Why are certain TV satellite stations banned in the US and Canada? What happened to free speech in those circumstances?
Posted by guesswho at January 6, 2007 07:44 PM
This post is in response to muff’s comments.
> Don’t get me wrong —- I was opposed to the war. However, it’s just as easy to exaggerate Saddam’s
> good qualities as it is to exaggerate his bad qualities.
This had me ROTFLMAO. If someone suggests that Saddam and his Ba’athist government were something less than evil incarnate, that is characterized as “exaggerating Saddam’s good qualities”. Did Saddam have any good qualities to exaggerate? In the fictional world of South Park, Saddam is portrayed as more evil than Satan; this is almost certainly an ironic comment on the efforts of the American political class to demonize Saddam.
> Under the early years of Saddam’s regime, women in Iraq had considerably more rights than they
> did in most (if not all) other Arab countries. This is true. HOWEVER, after the Persian Gulf
> War, this all changed. Saddam suppressed women’s rights as a way to appease his
> increasingly discontent (and largely fundamentalist) Shiite majority. Economic
> sanctions also took its toll on the Iraqi educational infrastructure.
Firstly, unless you think that Saddam actually desired economic sanctions, it is illogical to cite the impact of sanctions as evidence of Saddam’s disregard for the rights of women.
More generally, the unintended consequences of the first Gulf War include the backsliding into medievalism in various aspects of Iraqi life, not just in the area of women’s rights. In order to survive, which was Saddam’s prime and perhaps only directive, many powers that traditionally had been exercised by tribal sheikhs were devolved back to the sheikhs in order to gain their support. As a system of governance, tribalism is not noted for favouring impartiality or merit.
Anyways, muff’s argument proves the point. Attempting to encourage regime change after the first Gulf War gave Iraq a strong push back towards medievalism. Imposing regime change via invasion and occupation has dragged Iraq much further down that road.
Posted by R. A. Hicks at January 6, 2007 08:14 PM
Oh yeah: U.N. quality of life index- USA 9 & Cuba 50. Wealth: USA 8 & Cuba 167.
That’s damn good government!
Posted by Joshua at January 6, 2007 08:30 PM
… despite ecomonic sanctions.
Posted by Joshua at January 6, 2007 08:31 PM
Chatman, I am still waiting for answers to the questions I asked in two earlier posts. And your supporting Bino is like advocating the degradation of this site, which based on his history is his purpose anyway. I know one should not ascribe motives but really, can anyone really be that ignorant?
For another short yet more detailed synopsis of the Saddam trail, see:
http://www.gwynnedyer.net/articles/Gwynne%20Dyer%20article_%20%20Saddam’s%20Execution.txt
However, no one can top Eric’s first-hand encounters - they add colour to otherwise academic sounding analyses.
I saw Eric on TVO facing down the Israeli apologists. He calls a spade a spade.
Right on Joshua. The US is the world’s richest 3rd world country.
Posted by shazam at January 6, 2007 11:02 PM
Shazam:
Could you repeat the specific questions? I’ll do my best to answer.
On your invective against Bino; I simply don’t understand how you can claim with any coherence that he ‘caused’ the coarsening of dialogue here. Look back on the record; it was Rampart that assaulted both Bino and myself with racist invective as Bino’s points of view became increasingly distasteful to the rank and file here. I remember that history pretty well, so I am surprised you take the diametrically opposite view.
And besides, how can you possibly argue that calling him a ‘twit’ is, in any way, contributing to the continued existence of this comment section? Remember whose posts were deleted from the blog in the last post. Even if it were Bino’s intent to bring down the blog, how can you so callously fall into any traps he might be setting for you by resorting to the same pointless invective?
It would be nice if this blog focused on analysis, reasonable discussion, and respect of differing views; instead, we are so easily consumed with name-calling and theories about who is using multiple identities. If you are interested in the survival of blog (I certainly am), I can’t understand why you are so easily goaded into calling Bino names.
Posted by chatman at January 6, 2007 11:24 PM
Shazam,
I appreciate your comments and agree with your positions often, however please stop the Bino Bashing. He posted comments relating to the topic at hand and everyone is free to agree or disagree with them. Character assassination is not necessary. If anything it is personal attacks which stink up this board.
Posted by Paul Whiteside at January 6, 2007 11:56 PM
Joshua:
“Having access to the internet is not the same as free speech. Communication in the modern age of nation states and global politics is about power. Ideas about who we are and what our values are are influenced, shaped, and disemminated through channels of mass communication. You or I do not have the capability to reach millions of viewers on a daily, weekly, or even a monthly basis.”
You treat the powers of mass communication and rights of free speech as if they were one in the same; they are not. No matter how you argue it, you can’t equate the two, and one does not attenuate the other. Because I don’t have the ability to project my message as well as CNN, NBC, or FOX has no bearing on my ability to state my message without fear of government reprisal.
Free speech means one thing; that I may state my view, and that the government will not suppress that right without due process. Your attempt to involve my relative powerlessness against the corporate media monoliths confuses what is, in fact, a very simple issue. How far I can shout my message doesn’t have any bearing on my right to shout the message in the first place.
That fundamental right plants a seed for criticism and dissent. I am not inhibited from speaking my mind just because CNN’s message is louder than mine. I can speak it, type it, or publish it in a journal, peer reviewed or otherwise, without worrying about whether I will be put in jail for expressing it. I at least may take comfort in knowing that I have a right to due process before the government can abridge my rights. In Castro’s world, I could never plant the seed, because I would be thrown in jail for subversion. This is not justifiable, no matter how much you hate Western Imperialism.
Free speech is the right to speak through words and symbols, and to offend others without threat of punishment. How you can consider such a right to be a fantasy is incomprehensible to me. The right to express freely is completely divorced from the effectiveness of our expression, or the obnoxious foreign policy of a government that protects political speech.
You (and I as well) might be frustrated by how the United States manages its empire, but those policies have nothing to do with the most important right of protected discourse. To rob any citizen, be he a media conglomerate or a homeless person, of that right is not justifiable or understandable. To deny the right of free speech as a means of protecting a government is wrong; I don’t care if they do a bunch of other things right. All governments are a combination of wise and unwise policies. I don’t consider suppression of speech, or control of the press, to be ‘wise’ side of the ledger, notwithstanding your arguments of Cuba’s low infant mortality.
Posted by chatman at January 7, 2007 02:11 AM
Chatman,
You do make valid points regarding the issue of free speech versus mass communication. I think my point (and Joshua’s as well) is that the free speech supposedly available in North America is a charade evidenced by the reality that unless you tow the party line, you will be relegated to writing in obscure places like this blog and not in MSM (other than the token few allowed to enhance the charade).
I am still curious to know about the “free speech” when it comes to broadcasting Al Manar in North America. Is Al Jazeera even allowed? What about holocaust deniers (irrespective of its legitimacy). I hear about people being prosecuted for speaking freely about issues such as that one.
Posted by guesswho at January 7, 2007 03:30 AM
Chatman,
By the way, I understand that “due process” is not guaranteed in the US any longer, especially if you are dark skinned and named Mohamed. I do read about people being held inside the US (does the name Arar ring a bell?) as well as even less fortunates who are held without bail, without contact with family or lawyers (not even to let them know where they are) and it seems to be more frequent these days. Of course, this is not on the same level as more oppressive countries but please don’t tell us “I have a right to due process before the government can abridge my rights.” Well, maybe YOU do, but it seems that not every one else does.
Posted by guesswho at January 7, 2007 03:36 AM
Guesswho:
“I am still curious to know about the “free speech” when it comes to broadcasting Al Manar in North America. Is Al Jazeera even allowed?”
I have friends from the Middle East that receive Al Jazeera via satellite. As far as I know, there are no Federal indictments against them for being subversive, or for being enemies of the state. One of my sister’s political science teachers recommends that his students to consult Al Jazeera when they can, in an effort to get a more balanced perspective. To my knowledge, his tenure has not yet revoked, and my sister has not been contacted by the Feds for subversive activities. I would be interested to see evidence of either distributors or consumers of Al Jazeera going on trial for misuse of obscene or subversive speech.
“What about holocaust deniers (irrespective of its legitimacy) [?]. I hear about people being prosecuted for speaking freely about issues such as that one.”
Who is being sued and where? We have no laws in country prosecuting people for that reason; denying the holocaust is neither (1) obscene, (2) fighting words, nor (3) incitement to imminent lawless action. (Austria and Germany are different; there are laws in the books banning such speech). I would be interested in seeing evidence of such suits in the U.S.
Further, while it may be possible that private organizations or overzealous prosecutors who never read the constitution might bring “charges” against Holocaust deniers, I would be quite surprised to hear of any indictments or convictions for criminal activity. Considering that our courts protect hate speech from far right anti-semitic organizations like the Ku Klux Klan and Aryan Nation (Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444. 1969), I would be pretty impressed if you could show me what I want to see.
“By the way, I understand that “due process” is not guaranteed in the US any longer, especially if you are dark skinned and named Mohamed. I do read about people being held inside the US (does the name Arar ring a bell?) as well as even less fortunates who are held without bail, without contact with family or lawyers:”
Almost all due process violations related to ‘countering terrorism’ arise from Congress abdicating its responsibility and granting Bush an open-ended ‘Use of Force Authorization.’ Most of the people detained (and tortured) by the executive branch are outside the reach of the Federal justice system. Because Bush has been able to pack the Federal courts with judges who are more than willing to shove their heads in the sand when dealing with issues of ‘enemy combatants’ and ‘homeland security,’ Bush continues to get his way.
As a true believer in the need for due process, I find all such abridgements of individual rights to be reprehensible. Interestingly, most of those people were not picked up for any particular violation, but rather, were scooped in dragnets of probable terrorists. (Incidentally, I am a ‘darker skinned’ American; most people think I look like an Iranian, which caused more than a few unscheduled searches by TSA personnel in Airports, particularly in the months following 9/11…) Torture and open-ended detention aside, I am as appalled as anyone that those men have not been charged with any crimes, or granted access to legal counsel. I am one of many in this country who would like to see the judiciary re-assert its prerogative to protect minority interests and protect the rights of citizens and combat detainees.
Nonetheless, these kinds of due process abridgements are, regrettably, not new; such violations were common in the Jim Crow days, through the Civil Rights era, and even today in much of America. In a country with 300 million people, many of whom live in intellectual and cultural darkness, it’s difficult to guarantee perfect criminal procedure; 50 states amount to 50 different legal systems, and despite a rigorous bar certification procedure, our law schools produce more lousy attorneys than good ones. In spite of that, we do an admirable job; look at more populous nations like India or China, or similarly populous nations like Russia; how do they compare to us in this area?
Nonetheless, I agree that we don’t guarantee due process to everyone; sometimes it’s deliberate, and other times, it’s the unavoidable consequence of an imperfect justice system with an overloaded docket. (One reason why I wish we would abolish the death penalty is because of the risk that trial representation is not universally competent.) But for the vast majority of people in this country, constitutional rights cannot easily be abridged without due process.
Were it not for the fact that speech were not free, however, it is unlikely that we would even know that such abridgements were taking place.
Posted by chatman at January 7, 2007 04:27 AM
I’d like to think everything Chatman is saying is 100% correct, as he makes such a compelling case. Unfortunately it is just mostly correct. Plus I have this haunting feeling that freedom of speech in the West is nothing more than a “fair weather freedom”.
It is human nature to be extremist and in times of crisis we fall back on extremism. 9/11 makes this fact quite clear. The rise of Christian fundamentalism in parellel to the overall decline the Christian faith is going through is another example. McCathyism and the World Wars were just other moments freedom of speech was prohibited by extremist overreactions. Taking such things into account it was only nature for Cuba to restrict freedom of speech after the Bay of Pigs. Our governments would have done the exact same thing. Since then the continued economic embargo, coupled with threats from the USA has served as the excuse to continue to restrict free thought in Cuba. Again our politicians would have used any similar excuse exactly the same way as Castro has.
In the 21st century, with neo-politicos like Blair and Bush(and their partisan lackeys in the media) the question now is: will our politicians continue to create crisises to justify restricting freedom of speech?
It doesn’t even need a crisis as we’ve seen in Canada. Two decades of government harrassment against Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel ended with the man being deported. Unable to manipulate the law sufficently to throw Zundel in jail permanently, they eventually manipulated immigration law to kick him out. So it is not happening only in Germany and Austria.
Sadly we are reaching the point where our democratic freedoms will be tampered with - denied outright if we ever vote for the wrong party. We saw it happen with the election of Haider in Austria as the EU responded with the threat of economic sanctions. Unlike the Austrians, the Palestinians were too desperate too care and are currently being staved to death for exercising their freedom of choice. When Le Pen reached the final round of the French elections the hysteria from the media was unbelieveable. A self made crisis if I ever saw one. Of course the BBC and its colleagues turned Bosnia and Kosovo into western crisises and were rewarded with a nice, little war to cover.
Regarding the internet and freedom of speech, enjoy it while it lasts. From its inception there has always been a political movement to control the internet(not just politicians in China and Iran) and this behind the scenes fight will continue and eventually be won by their side - it’s not a fair fight.
It’s always been safe to say: “freedom of speech exists for those with nothing to say”. Just try saying something that is taboo to the public. Not here, this is no public. I can rant to my cat and I have as meaningful a public! Rather I suggest you watch our illusionary freedom subtly eroded away. Or not so subtly as crisis follows crisis, according to our politicians and media(the only people with real voices who don’t want to share the podium.
Posted by Paul Whiteside at January 7, 2007 08:43 AM
You make some compelling points Chatman and you argue admirably while refraining from personal attacks. Cheers-
Posted by Joshua at January 7, 2007 04:07 PM
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: it’s absurd to compare life in Cuba with life in the U.S.—apples and oranges. Rather, compare Cuba to U.S. clients like Haiti, Nicaragua, Panama, the Philippines, etc., and you’ll realize what an excellent government the Cuban people have had since the Revolution.
Posted by hyperbolus at January 7, 2007 06:34 PM
Muff… doesn’t matter that Cuba has the highest abortion rate (if it does, odd for high RC religion). The rate of abortion has no effect on the infant mortality rate. The higher US rate should be an embarassment for a civilized highly technological society and only exists because of the lack of proper medical attention for those that cannot afford it.
Posted by dikcoates at January 7, 2007 08:07 PM
I read Mr. Margolis’s work because he is head and shoulders above most of what I read in the US.
But I feel that he has glossed over the sectarian violence and how it unfolded in Iraq.
I am not saying sectarian violence would not have happened, but someone was there to make sure it did happen.
Posted by jt at January 8, 2007 03:48 AM
Off topic, but here is an article by Gwynne Dyer on the Somalia situation.
http://www.gwynnedyer.net/articles/Gwynne%20Dyer%20article_%20%20New%20War%20in%20Africa.txt
Posted by Weary at January 8, 2007 09:31 AM
And her is one by Gwynne Dyer that is on topic.
http://www.gwynnedyer.net/articles/Gwynne%20Dyer%20article_%20%20Saddam’s%20Execution.txt
Posted by Weary at January 8, 2007 09:34 AM
On Somalia: I’m thrilled I’m not living under a regime that demands I pray to Allah 5 times a day or have my head sawed off as a result of non-compliance.
That would totally suck.
Posted by Bino at January 8, 2007 11:53 AM
Bino said:
“On Somalia: I’m thrilled I’m not living under a regime that demands I pray to Allah 5 times a day or have my head sawed off as a result of non-compliance.”
Please support this statement with some facts.
Posted by Weary at January 8, 2007 11:57 AM
Sure:
From the International Herald Tribune:
“But while moderate forces in Somalia have been appalled by the brutal intolerance of Islamist leaders who have threatened to behead people for not praying five times a day, they are unlikely to embrace Ethiopian soldiers as a good alternative.”
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/12/28/opinion/edsomalia.php
Another source, aptly titled, “Pray five times daily ‘or face beheading’
http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1814932006
or the WaPo: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/06/AR2006120601849.html?nav=rss_world/africa
Yes, these are the same folks who killed two teens back in July after spraying a group of kids for the “unIslamic” crime of…wait for it…wait for it…watching Germany play France in the World Cup.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/5150118.stm
Let the good times, and some infidel heads, roll!
Posted by Bino at January 8, 2007 01:46 PM
The Somalis have no good options; either anarchy under the boot of externally backed warlords, or repression and religious intolerance under an Islamic government. Neither is particularly popular, and what the Islamists provide in stability they more than make up for with their religious intolerance and brutality. The really can’t win.
Posted by chatman at January 8, 2007 02:20 PM
Agreed, Chatman. Horrible, horrible situation. Also, I replied to you in the Year in Review thread re: Wiped off the map.
Posted by Bino at January 8, 2007 02:23 PM
Thanks Bino,
The choice for Somalia appears to be between some particularly horrible warlords (www.iht.com) and brutal Islamic radicals. Why do you support the particularly horrible warlords, when the brutal Islamic radicals have at least introduced a level of civil administration and justice which the country has not seen for the past 15 years (news.bbc.co.uk)?
Posted by Weary at January 8, 2007 02:34 PM
IMHO, lesser of 2 evils. A don’t want to take side, but I simply can’t side with a medieval, religious sort of evil that represses women, thought and freedom in every possible sense. At least the Transitional Federal Government they overthrew had UN “backing”. The “level of justice” you cite is barbarism. It’s easier to rule people when their alternative to your rule is death, but I’d really, really hate to be a subject of said “government” - especially if I were, say, a woman. You think the UIC is interested in equality, higher education, etc? Again, for me, simply the lesser of 2 evils.
Posted by Bino at January 8, 2007 03:02 PM
Bino,
Then why do you think the Islamic Court is generally more popular in Somalia than the warlords?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/5055610.stm
Posted by Weary at January 8, 2007 04:07 PM
The article you linked answered your question: The warlords are hated for their role in Somalia’s 15-year civil war. And to clarify, I’m certainly no fan of theirs. I imagine after 15 or so years of anarchy, a ruler like the UIC ain’t that bad – it might be a harsh sort of order, but it is order nevertheless.
At the risk of becoming even more unpopular, this is where I’ll recommend a book by a Somali refugee, a feminist who had her genitals mutilated as per the practices of the particular Somali Muslim clan she was born in to: The Caged Virgin – An Emancipation Proclamation for Women and Islam by Aayan Hirsi Ali.
Thanks for the civil chat today, weary.
Posted by Bino at January 8, 2007 04:31 PM
Bino:
For the record, I am pretty sure that African genital mutilation predates Islam (They might be Zulu rites). Heck, even the veil predates Islam; that was a Sumerian tradition that was adopted and justified by early Islam as a form of modesty. That said, I’m not sure the Q’ran requires any such misogyny among its practitioners and followers.
One of the big problems with the Western perception of Islam as misogynistic is the fact that the religion is followed by a number of very patriarchal societies; African peoples are known for extreme patriarchy; women were little more than property in most African societies, to be collected like goats and gourds for the purpose of generating sons. The same is true of many central and south Asian societies. If you look at the way conservative Hindus treat women, it isn’t much different from islamic extremists, and in some ways it’s worse.
Islam was able to spread to these areas because it allowed some tribal traditions, including barbaric ones like genital mutilation, to survive. The same is true of Christianity, another religion that is no more or less patriarchal in word than Islam. The Swedes would never have converted to Christianity if it forbade them from throwing their infant daughters in the river.
Religion can retard the abandonment of patriarchy, but I am not sure that it always serves as the source of it.
Posted by chatman at January 8, 2007 08:32 PM
Bino:
So the majority of people in Somalia prefer the Islamic Court over the warlords, and yet you seem to support the overthrow of the Islamic Court and the installation of the warlords as the government.
I would think that the desires of the majority of the people of Somalia should take precedence over what anyone else outside of Somalia wants.
Posted by Weary at January 9, 2007 11:21 AM
Hey, if they, the majority, want to be “governed” by Sharia law and all the harshness that entails, so be it. As long as they aren’t harboring the sort of radical extremists who plot embassy bombings and whatnot, it’s no sweat off my back. I’m not the soft lefty clamoring for human rights. And as long as they aren’t forced to adopt the religious belie…oops!
Posted by Bino at January 9, 2007 01:38 PM