14 years in an Iraqi prison for selling a roll of film

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Doesn't seem much evidence of re-examination. We have overwhelming evidence of the Saudis looking the other way towards funding of terrorists, they're human rights abusers on a grand scale, and effectively a kleptocratic dictatorship, but they're still "allies."

Musharraf isn't all that bad of a guy (dictator that he is), he just looks the other way as much as he can at home-grown terrorist groups advancing Pakistanis goals with respect to Kashmir, and plays chicken with India - the highest probability nuclear conflict in the world today.

Most of our other "allies" in that part of the world are also monarchies or dictatorships, so "democracy" is of no real interest to us.

Dostum is a murdering butcher - ask the Hezara, or ethnic Pashtuns who happen to be up in his territory The only difference in Mazar-e-sharif is that the populace are primarily Dostum's people and ethnic Taijiks, who are the lowest priority targets for mistreatment. In other words, there just aren't as many people to rape, pillage and plunder as the Taleban had in Mazar, but put Dostum in Ghazny or Khowst, for example, and the history of his behavior indicates he'd be as bad or worse than the Taleban.

The "strengthening" of the Karzai government is to try to give it some stability and eventual ability to hold it's own against the Hekmatyar-Taleban-al Qaeda coalition around Khowst. The Karzai government doesn't concern itself with Dostum's fiefdom, and as long as they ignore each other, they get along - by essentially ignoring each other.

If you want to go for a "worst dictator" award, that one has to go without question to Dear Leader Kim, who is a far more potent threat than Saddam will ever be. What do we do? We treat Kim in a much different light than we treat Saddam, and we always will. A war with the DPRK, despite the desirability of reuniting the Koreas, saving the lives of the North Korean people, and ridding the world of Kim Jong Il, will be a bloodbath, pure and simple. So our "re-examined" policy is to go after chumps that can't put up a fight, and hope we can maybe talk and dance our way around larger threats.

1. Perv and Saudi are not in the same class as Saddam. Neither is Dostum.

2. Kim is the only one who comes close to Saddam. No we cant hit him head on, he has nukes. Thats why we dont want Saddam to have nukes. In any case Kim aint our pal, and we will do what we can about him, working with nations in the region. We dont have the obligation to treat every international situation identically - we dont have the strength to do that, and it is unlikely we ever will.

3. We are watching Perv's behavior, and may yet act on it.

4. We are quite aware of the Saudi problem - taking out Saddam will vastly improve our leverage with Saudi.

5. Karzai is naturally cracking down on the warlords in the Pashtun provinces first - in addition to the Taliban-AQ danger, they are smaller and weaker. He needs to expand his power base before he can take on the more powerful warlords in the North. And BTW, both the US and Karzai monitor Dostums current behavior - as long as rules better now , we wont hold the past against him. ( the Afghans do far too much focusing on the past)

[Wernazuma III]

23 years in a US prison for being a ******

What's that all about? Of course Saddam is a f*cking dictator - get it finally in your heads that those who oppose the war know that.

Still, I can't help posting this here at that instance:

From http://www.amnestyusa.org/abolish/re...mmary.htmlUSA: A Life In The Balance
The Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal

SUMMARY

The conviction and death sentence against Mumia Abu-Jamal illustrate many of Amnesty International's long-term concerns regarding the administration of capital punishment in the United States of America (USA). Aside from the organization's unconditional opposition to the death penalty, his case raises many serious questions when scrutinized under the international standards governing the use of capital punishment in the diminishing list of countries which still resort to judicial killing.

Many of those condemned to death in the USA have been sentenced after proceedings which violated international standards. These standards aim to guarantee the strictest safeguards where this most irrevocable of punishments is used. Perhaps the most powerful indictment of the USA's continuing failure to adhere to such safeguards is the number of wrongful convictions in capital cases. Between 1973 and 1999, 84 defendants sentenced to death in US courts were later released after evidence of their innocence emerged - eight of them in 1999 alone. Others went to their deaths despite doubts surrounding their guilt. It can no longer be argued -- if it ever could -- that the US capital justice system guarantees freedom from fatal error. Although Amnesty International is not in a position to say whether Mumia Abu-Jamal is innocent or guilty of the crime of which he was sentenced to die, the organization nevertheless has serious concerns about this highly politicized case and believes that the interests of justice would best be served by the granting of a new trial, the outcome of which should preclude the reimposition of a death sentence, to Mumia Abu-Jamal.

Concerns in this case include Mumia Abu-Jamal's inadequate legal representation at his 1982 trial; a trial judge apparently far more concerned to expedite the trial than to ensure the impartial and fair administration of justice; and the politicization of the judicial process and possible bias of the appeal courts.

This report conducts a full analysis of Mumia Abu-Jamal's trial, including the background and atmosphere prevailing in the city of Philadelphia in 1982, and the possible political influences that may have, to date, prevented Abu-Jamal receiving an impartial and fair hearing for his legal appeals.

Mumia Abu-Jamal's legal appeals have been denied by Pennsylvania's state courts and are now before the federal Third Circuit Court of Appeals. The federal courts represent Abu-Jamal's final opportunity to have many of the troubling issues in his case addressed and corrected. However, the 1996 Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act severely limits the federal courts' ability to ensure that the legal proceedings at state level guaranteed the defendants' rights enshrined in the US Constitution and under international human rights standards. Amnesty International has chosen this time, a time when Abu-Jamal's life is in the balance, to release this report.

In opposing the death penalty, Amnesty International in no way seeks to minimize or condone the crimes for which those sentenced to death and executed were convicted. Nor does the organization seek to belittle the appalling suffering of the families of victims of violence, such as the family of Officer Daniel Faulkner, for whom it has the greatest sympathy.

[lord of the mark]

Re: 23 years in a US prison for being a ******

Originally posted by Wernazuma III
What's that all about? Of course Saddam is a f*cking dictator - get it finally in your heads that those who oppose the war know that.

Still, I can't help posting this here at that instance:

so i cant help posting thisl

"Voice of Iraqis
Why don?t antiwar types want to hear them?

By Amir Taheri
Could I have the microphone for one minute to tell the people about my life?" asked the Iraqi grandmother.


I spent part of a recent Saturday with the so-called "antiwar" marchers in London in the company of some Iraqi friends. Our aim had been to persuade the organizers to let at least one Iraqi voice to be heard. Soon, however, it became clear that the organizers were as anxious to stifle the voice of the Iraqis in exile as was Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

The Iraqis had come with placards reading "Freedom for Iraq" and "American rule, a hundred thousand times better than Takriti tyranny!"

But the tough guys who supervised the march would have none of that. Only official placards, manufactured in thousands and distributed among the "spontaneous" marchers, were allowed. These read "Bush and Blair, baby-killers," " Not in my name," "Freedom for Palestine," and "Indict Bush and Sharon."

Not one placard demanded that Saddam should disarm to avoid war.

The goons also confiscated photographs showing the tragedy of Halabja, the Kurdish town where Saddam's forces gassed 5,000 people to death in 1988.

We managed to reach some of the stars of the show, including Reverend Jesse Jackson, the self-styled champion of American civil rights. One of our group, Salima Kazim, an Iraqi grandmother, managed to attract the reverend's attention and told him how Saddam Hussein had murdered her three sons because they had been dissidents in the Baath Party; and how one of her grandsons had died in the war Saddam had launched against Kuwait in 1990.

"Could I have the microphone for one minute to tell the people about my life?" 78-year-old Salima demanded.

The reverend was not pleased.

"Today is not about Saddam Hussein," he snapped. "Today is about Bush and Blair and the massacre they plan in Iraq." Salima had to beat a retreat, with all of us following, as the reverend's gorillas closed in to protect his holiness.

We next spotted former film star Glenda Jackson, apparently manning a stand where "antiwar" characters could sign up to become "human shields" to protect Saddam's military installations against American air attacks.

"These people are mad," said Awad Nasser, one of Iraq's most famous modernist poets. "They are actually signing up to sacrifice their lives to protect a tyrant's death machine."

The former film star, now a Labor party member of parliament, had no time for "side issues" such as the 1.2 million Iraqis, Iranians, and Kuwaitis who have died as a result of Saddam's various wars.

We thought we might have a better chance with Charles Kennedy, a boyish-looking, red-headed Scot who leads the misnamed Liberal Democrat party. But he, too, had no time for "complex issues" that could not be raised at a mass rally.

"The point of what we are doing here is to tell the American and British governments that we are against war," he pontificated. "There will be ample time for other issues."

But was it not amazing that there could be a rally about Iraq without any mention of what Saddam and his regime have done over almost three decades? Just a little hint, perhaps, that Saddam was still murdering people in his Qasr al-Nayhayah (Palace of the End) prison, and that as the Westerners marched, Iraqis continued to die?

Not a chance.

We then ran into Tony Benn, a leftist septuagenarian who has recycled himself as a television reporter to interview Saddam in Baghdad.

But we knew there was no point in talking to him. The previous night he had appeared on TV to tell the Brits that his friend Saddam was standing for "the little people" against "hegemonistic America."

"Are these people ignorant, or are they blinded by hatred of the United States?" Nasser the poet demanded.

[MRT144]

when are we going to invade china and north korea and bring democracy to them!

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by MRT144
when are we going to invade china and north korea and bring democracy to them! :doitnow:

it want that long ago that Noam chomsky was screaming that US-UK policy on Kosovo was hypocritical, because we werent doing anything about East Timor. Now East Timor is an independent democracy. Dont hear much from Chomsky et al about East Timor anymore. (though there is an oped piece in the NYT by the FM of East Timor - taking issue with the current war protesters) SO be careful what you ask for.

[MRT144]

what i say is more in jest than anything else. i think if americans want to be the armed ambassador of democracy, then why apply our might to only a few select countries?

also if the war does go through and is wildly succesful, dont you think that sets dangerous new precedent for our future actions? whos next in line? syria, iran? shall we just mosey in and apply a regime change because it was so wildly succesful in iraq? (assuming it is wildly succesful)

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi


Comeon Mike, you are better then these types of posts.

Why thank you. The ineptitude of the Democrats keeps pushing me further towards converting to the dark side, but Darth Bush & the chickenhawks keep pushing me back. I think the American people are better than the type of pablum we're being fed about the rationale for committing half the ground combat capability and a majority of the combat services support capability of the United States, for an indefinite time frame.

Crap like "Saddam gassed his own people" and Bush's nonsense about a ship-launched Iraqi UAV with a spray rig flying hundreds of miles into the US without being detected is just a little rich.

Of course the brutal nature of Saddam's regime is not the reason we are going into Iraq. But seeing the extent of Saddam's brutality can tell us it's not a bad th ing moving in to take him out.

Here's a dose of "realpolitik" for you: I don't care if he kills or tortures or imprisons a few thousand more -- it still ain't worth tieing up as large a chunk of our warfighting capability. Back when he was our boy, we didn't worry about what a murderous SOB he was because we had bigger fish to fry. Guess what? We still have bigger fish to fry.

A lot of leftists are acting like we are about to do this horrible thing to the Iraqi people, or that is not our place to tell the Iraqis what type of government they have.

We are and it isn't. Not only leftists say that. Like it or not, regardless of any long range benefits, war will kill, injure and sicken a lot of civilians, no matter how well we plan and execute it. And like it or not, there's no real viable opposition (they've all been in exile and have limited connection with the Iraqi people) and the place is a strategic minefield and geopolitical quagmire, with all sorts of competing interests, many of which are hostile to us. We don't have a good record of doing things right in the Islamic world, or of understanding the world views and political aims of the competing forces there.

(so long as we handled the post-war situation well enough).

This, as well as the commitment of so large a portion of our warfighting and support capacity, is the real sticking point.

Because there is no moral evil in disposing of Saddam, there is no moral reason not to follow our national interest in removing Saddam.

I'm not concerned about morality, I'm concerned about effectively fighting al Qaeda and Islamic fundamentalism, while maintaining the flexibility to respond to acts by the DPRK or other enemies of opportunity. One of the dicta of military defense is that if you try to defend everything, you suceed in defending nothing. A corolary to that would be that once you commit to defending something, you diminish your capacity to defend other things. I don't see the goal as worth the level of resources committed, in view of our overall threat picture on a global level.

[Wernazuma III]

LOTM: I could tell you about a big bunch of Kurds who protested [b]with us[/i] in our anti-Iraq march. I didn't like their company however, they only cared about their Öcalan-banners and merely used the march for their own protest.

And about your article: , what's the site you got THAT from? Newsmax? It's definitely a very distanced and neutral approach. Just look at the style. I especially liked these:

Today is not about Saddam Hussein," he snapped. "Today is about Bush and Blair and the massacre they plan in Iraq." Salima had to beat a retreat, with all of us following, as the reverend's gorillas closed in to protect his holiness.

Why should this woman be allowed to speak? Always, at such events, those who speak are chosen beforehand. I wouldn't want to see Falwell's gorillas beating up some guy who tells his life story, arguing for gay rights. Think about a republican getting to the microphone speaking at a convent of the democrats or vice cersa...
What a BS!

[Shi Huangdi]

"I don't care if he kills or tortures or imprisons a few thousand more -- it still ain't worth tieing up as large a chunk of our warfighting capability."

Of course. What it means though is there is nothing morally objectionable in taking Saddam out.

"Like it or not, regardless of any long range benefits, war will kill, injure and sicken a lot of civilians, no matter how well we plan and execute it. "

Freedom is won through bloodshed. And chance are I think we will be able to install a government is at least better then the tyrant we have in now.

"I'm not concerned about morality, I'm concerned about effectively fighting al Qaeda and Islamic fundamentalism, while maintaining the flexibility to respond to acts by the DPRK or other enemies of opportunity. One of the dicta of military defense is that if you try to defend everything, you suceed in defending nothing. A corolary to that would be that once you commit to defending something, you diminish your capacity to defend other things. I don't see the goal as worth the level of resources committed, in view of our overall threat picture on a global level."

These are valid enough concerns, although I would say that if Saddam is allowed to develop nuclear weapons it would significantly hinder our geopolitical presence in the middle east, whereas if we put in a pro-US government in Iraq(something that miight be easier if indeed Saddam is that bad and the Iraqi people are sick of him), it would significantly increase our power prokection capabilities in the middle east.

But that's not the point of this thread. To get to back to the point of the thread, which is about what an ******* Saddam is, no it is not a reason to invade Iraq because Saddam is a dictator who has gassed his own people and is running a brutal totaltarian police state. We have been friends with plenty totaltarian police states. The key is though, we shouldn't be acting like we are doing this horrible thing to the Iraqi people by getting rid of Saddam.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

1. Perv and Saudi are not in the same class as Saddam. Neither is Dostum.

Agreed. Not for reasons you'll like, though.

Musharraf is a military dictator of a nuclear power, which has parts of it's government freelance and sponsor terrorist groups who attack an archenemy nuclear power over a territorial dispute which has already caused two wars between those countries. He's a constant assassination risk, and has a country which has a large pro-Taleban hardcore fundamentalist element which harbors a lot of Taleban and al-Qaeda fighters.

The Saudis have been milking everybody on all sides for generations - it's their family business, so to speak, so while they pay lip services as allies and let us do some of what they want, they also buy off the fundies elements who'd like to behead them in a public square, by looking the other way while their citizens and even some members of their royal family funnel huge amounts of money to Islamic terrorist groups. The Saudis know how to dance with multiple partners real well, the question is just for how long?

Dostum's just a small time thug, but one so bad that he made the Taleban initially welcome when they chased his ass into Uzbekistan. "Allies" that are dirty enough to provide an object for fundamentalist rebellions aren't very useful.

2. Kim is the only one who comes close to Saddam. No we cant hit him head on, he has nukes. Thats why we dont want Saddam to have nukes. In any case Kim aint our pal, and we will do what we can about him, working with nations in the region. We dont have the obligation to treat every international situation identically - we dont have the strength to do that, and it is unlikely we ever will.

If we can't hit Kim, and he knows it and we know it, what's to prevent him from selling nukes to al Qaeda? If we don't have the strength to confront critical threats, we better damn well acquire it, or rethink our approach to confrontation and how many enemies we make. Our enemies and potential enemies aren't so dumb as to be less aware of the limits to our strength than we are.

4. We are quite aware of the Saudi problem - taking out Saddam will vastly improve our leverage with Saudi.

Assuming that (a) the Saudis don't as usual outplay us at the poker table; and (b) experience so much unrest from fundies pissed at their being lackeys for the US that they have an excuse to argue that they're the only ones who can hold the lid on, so we'll just have to give them some slack. (the same way we put up with the two-facedness of the Pakistani government.) The simple fact is that we don't dare invade or knock off Saudi, or even look like we're going to, unless we want a life and death struggle with the entire Islamic world. US forces administering the areas around Mecca and Medina? Allah help us all.

5. Karzai is naturally cracking down on the warlords in the Pashtun provinces first - in addition to the Taliban-AQ danger, they are smaller and weaker. He needs to expand his power base before he can take on the more powerful warlords in the North.

Karzai needs a power base first. He's more or less managed to secure Kabul most of the time, but even Najibullah managed that. Given more help, he could do the job, but that gets back to that nagging question of the US committing too many resources over Iraq, when there are more acute threats, and past messes to clean up. We'd have a lot more credibility in the Islamic world if we actually did a good job in Afghanistan, and we can continue detaining and deterring Saddam with far few resources than are required to invade, occupy, and transform Iraq.

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by MRT144
also if the war does go through and is wildly succesful, dont you think that sets dangerous new precedent for our future actions? whos next in line? syria, iran? shall we just mosey in and apply a regime change because it was so wildly succesful in iraq? (assuming it is wildly succesful)

Yes, until in the last instance Germany and France are freed from their brutal rulers who support dictators like Saddam Hussein and who are unthankful prats who don't want to listen to daddy's omniscient wisdom.
Once the whole world has embraced the American system, there will be freedom and democracy in the whole world and all be happy.

God bless the World.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Agreed. Not for reasons you'll like, though.

Musharraf is a military dictator of a nuclear power, which has parts of it's government freelance and sponsor terrorist groups who attack an archenemy nuclear power over a territorial dispute which has already caused two wars between those countries. He's a constant assassination risk, and has a country which has a large pro-Taleban hardcore fundamentalist element which harbors a lot of Taleban and al-Qaeda fighters.

LOTM-yeah - pakland is a problem. i dont think using the forces now in the Persian gulf in Pakistan is the idela way to deal iwth that problem at this poiint.

The Saudis have been milking everybody on all sides for generations - it's their family


business, so to speak, so while they pay lip services as allies and let us do some of what they want, they also buy off the fundies elements who'd like to behead them in a public square, by looking the other way while their citizens and even some members of their royal family funnel huge amounts of money to Islamic terrorist groups. The Saudis know how to dance with multiple partners real well, the question is just for how long?

LOTM- again if we are to have leverage over them, we need to go into Iraq.


Dostum's just a small time thug, but one so bad that he made the Taleban initially welcome when they chased his ass into Uzbekistan. "Allies" that are dirty enough to provide an object for fundamentalist rebellions aren't very useful.

LOTM - But since october 2001 he has been useful, and has not provoked any fundamentalist rebeliions. When his behavior changes we should respond.

If we can't hit Kim, and he knows it and we know it, what's to prevent him from selling nukes to al Qaeda? If we don't have the strength to confront critical threats, we better damn well acquire it, or rethink our approach to confrontation and how many enemies we make. Our enemies and potential enemies aren't so dumb as to be less aware of the limits to our strength than we are.

LOTM- = we were discussing the human rights question. If we thought KIM was selling nukes to al qaeeda the whole cost benifit equation would change. And he knows that - better i think, than Saddam does.

Assuming that (a) the Saudis don't as usual outplay us at the poker table; and (b) experience so much unrest from fundies pissed at their being lackeys for the US that they have an excuse to argue that they're the only ones who can hold the lid on, so we'll just have to give them some slack. (the same way we put up with the two-facedness of the Pakistani government.) The simple fact is that we don't dare invade or knock off Saudi, or even look like we're going to, unless we want a life and death struggle with the entire Islamic world. US forces administering the areas around Mecca and Medina? Allah help us all.

LOTM= who said we have to invade Saudi??? there are many other ways of applying pressure, all enhanced by a victory in Iraq. The very existence of a pro-US, democracy, if we can pull it off, will have an effect on Saudi. And even in the worst case would we ever have to invade Mecca?? The source of Saudie danger is money, and the source of saudi money is oil, and if youve noticed the saudi oil is in the predominantly Shiite eastern province. You may also have noticed that Shiite arabs make up the largest group in Iraq, and that the Saudis seem very concerned that the Shiites not take power in Iraq.



Karzai needs a power base first. He's more or less managed to secure Kabul most of the time, but even Najibullah managed that. Given more help, he could do the job, but that gets back to that nagging question of the US committing too many resources over Iraq, when there are more acute threats, and past messes to clean up. We'd have a lot more credibility in the Islamic world if we actually did a good job in Afghanistan, and we can continue detaining and deterring Saddam with far few resources than are required to invade, occupy, and transform Iraq.

You seem to believe that Karzai would be better off with tens of thousands more US troops. The history of Afghanistan, especially during Brit and Soviet occupations indicates that that is NOT the case. More US troops would only seal the judgement that he is a US puppet, and would result in a national rebellion that would make the current security problems look like a picnic. The decision to go into Afganistan so lightly, despite the frustrations, was the most brilliant thing the admin has yet done, as far as I am concerned. They avoided the trap AQ set for us.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

This, as well as the commitment of so large a portion of our warfighting and support capacity, is the real sticking point.



I'm not concerned about morality, I'm concerned about effectively fighting al Qaeda and Islamic fundamentalism, while maintaining the flexibility to respond to acts by the DPRK or other enemies of opportunity. One of the dicta of military defense is that if you try to defend everything, you suceed in defending nothing. A corolary to that would be that once you commit to defending something, you diminish your capacity to defend other things. I don't see the goal as worth the level of resources committed, in view of our overall threat picture on a global level.

The point is to avoid a static defense - which relies on homeland defense and international policework as the exclusive tools - the former never likely to be completely effective,and the latter handicapped by nations that give only gurdging cooperation. Moving offensively puts all those nations on notice of what you are capable of and willing to do. Given that the geographic center of the threat is in the Middle East, including not just Iraq, but Iran, Syria, and Saudi, Iraq is the central point for further actions. And the easiest one politically, to start with. And before anyone gets bent out of shape recall again that "further actions" need not be military. In Iran, for example, their is evidence that dissidents are very eager to see the US succeed in Iraq. There is already evidence this is impacting the Iranian regime.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III
LOTM: I could tell you about a big bunch of Kurds who protested [b]with us[/i] in our anti-Iraq march. I didn't like their company however, they only cared about their Öcalan-banners and merely used the march for their own protest.

Sound like they were Turkish Kurds, not Iraqis.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III

Why should this woman be allowed to speak? Always, at such events, those who speak are chosen beforehand. I wouldn't want to see Falwell's gorillas beating up some guy who tells his life story, arguing for gay rights. Think about a republican getting to the microphone speaking at a convent of the democrats or vice cersa...
What a BS!

So you're saying the attitude of the peace marchers towards Iraqis is the same as the attitude of Falwell towards gays??

Thank you for making my point.