Saddam should be taken out back and shot, forget the trial!

[Mean MrMustard]

BlackJesus,

I guess you wholly support the invasion of nearly the entire continent of Africa? The way the people have been treated over the years, makes Saddam look like a school boy. Saddam has near to nothing on the despotic governments and warlords of Africa. I mean afterall, if we went to liberate an oppressed people, what made Saddam stick out? Saddam couldn't hold a candle to the genocidal warlords and gov'ts.

If liberation was the key, common sense would tell us we would liberate Africa before Iraq.

The Bush and Co. answer to the question was WMDs. WMDs were to be the key to justify invasion of Iraq over any place else. Even then, how many other countries have WMDs? Why don't we invade (errr...excuse me, 'liberate') them? I personally think NK is much more a threat than Iraq could ever have dreamt of being. Let's not get started on China... Iran? Sudan? Syria?

WMDs were the key. So where are they? Until they are found, even Bush's justification for war has failed to present itself.

Let's say they are found. The war is justified, right? Everyone should move on now, right? Wrong. Anyone with any amount of intelligence has to conclude that a pre-emptive foreign policy is a horrible idea, whether they admit it or not.

In light of your comment about the first Gulf War:

This is in no way the same situation as the first war. Saddam invaded a sovereign country, we came to fight him back. That pretty much sums it up.

 

[AnitaPeterson]

Someone mentioned Ceausescu... don't forget Ceausescu was put to trial (albeit in a kangaroo court) and executed by Romanians themselves, without (at least openly) foreign interference. Big difference. The people of the country *alone* have the right to dispose thus of their former leader. Killing Saddam without a trial would be murder, unlawful and negating all the principles of the Western world.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: BlackJesus03

Originally posted by: CQuinn

Your right. Saddam did not institute the policy of women covering their heads, but he sure as hell found other ways to discriminate against them, often using religion as an automatic basis for right. Check the literacy rate for women. 24%? And your telling me they were better off then, when they weren't allowed to go to school?

Better off than what? Again, compared to other countries in the region and other islamic nations in
general, Iraq came and comes across as a fairly progressive nation that actually had a conceptual basis
for equality among the sexes. Saddam discriminated against specific social groups, using tribal ties
to specific social structures within Iraqi society to maintain his base of power. I have seen no evidence
that he held a specific agenda against women as a whole (compared to Saudi Arabia for instance), and
in fact several of the prominent scientists that we were looking for to "prove" evidence of WMDs were
women.

Your original arguement is still getting weaker as we go along.

Sweet- you mean compared to countries that openly discriminated against their women, Iraq comes out on top? oh my god. what a relief. i was talking about compared to countries like the US and Britain-countries that actually matter in the grand scheme of the world and have taken steps over the past 100 years to equalize things. Of course Iraq is better than some. The issue is that they are worst that most.

And if you need specific evidence, how about that 24 % literacy arte among women? Now, you might actually have to do some critical thinking here. I know its tough, but try. Low literacy means low percentage and achievement in schooling. Now, it makes sense that if you aren't allowed to go to school, you probably didn't get much schooling, right? Very good, now, try to drive thorugh that headache and follow along here. Why wouldn't women be allowed to go to school? Because saddam didn't want them to? maybe, but the point is that they weren't allowed to go to school. Thats discrimination fo the highest sort me. Good job. You can go take a nap now.

This link shows that the net primary school attendance from 1992 to 2002 was 70% for women and 83% for men. I think that disproves your little statement that women weren't allowed to go to school.

According to this link the literacy rate of women was 47.2% in 2001 which is high compared to many other countries, including India (46.4%). The literacy rate among men was 66.4% in Iraq and 69% in India. Womens literacy rate in Iraq has been increasing steadily since 1980 and was at 24% in 1982-83.

YOU can go take a nap now.

 

[Klixxer]

Originally posted by: AnitaPeterson
Someone mentioned Ceausescu... don't forget Ceausescu was put to trial (albeit in a kangaroo court) and executed by Romanians themselves, without (at least openly) foreign interference. Big difference. The people of the country *alone* have the right to dispose thus of their former leader. Killing Saddam without a trial would be murder, unlawful and negating all the principles of the Western world.

True, democracy starts with justice and equality under the law.