Saddam Hussein: the least of three evils

Nine months in prison and 200 lashes for being raped.
Saudi court ups punishment for gang-rape victim
A court in Saudi Arabia increased the punishment for a gang-rape victim after she spoke to the media about the case.
The judges more than doubled the punishment for the victim because of "her attempt to aggravate and influence the judiciary through the media," according to a source quoted by Arab News, an English-language Middle Eastern daily newspaper.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/11/17/saudi.rape.victim/index.html

Saddam Hussein was a thug, a socialist-militarist brute... but a secular socialist-militarist brute. The USA toppled his government because he threatened Iran and Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia paid (cash) for the First Gulf War because it saw Kuwait fall and the Kuwaiti royal family flee -- and they knew that the same demographics would apply to them. Secondarily, the US State Department hoped to curry favor with Iran.

Sow the wind and reap the whirlwind.

Post 1

Monday, November 19, 2007 - 5:02pm

Saddam Hussein was a thug, a socialist-militarist brute... but a secular socialist-militarist brute. The USA toppled his government because he threatened Iran and Saudi Arabia.

False!!! Wrong answer, try that one again Marotta. First of all you have your two Iraq wars jumbled up. He threatened to gain a foothold on a majority of the world's oil supply which is why the first action against Iraq in 1991 took place. The second action took place in 2003 because of a continued desire by Saddam Hussein to garner weapons of mass destruction combined with his explicit financial support for Islamo-fascist groups Hamas and Hezbollah whom have killed Americans, Israelis, and Europeans. He threatened the United States and its citizens, that was the reason for toppling his government. Nice try smuggling that bullshit premise in.

And I thought you were an isolationist? All of a sudden you care about this poor woman in Saudi Arabia? Why the change of heart Marotta? So can I now count you as a supporter for the toppling of the Saudi regime?
(Edited by John Armaos on 11/19, 5:12pm)

Post 2

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 - 10:47am

Which two evils are more evil?

Isn't comparing evils like comparing breeds of cats? Sure you could have a Tabby, a Siamese and a short hair, but reduced to the logical lowest common denominator they are all cats.

The tendency to justify or tolerate some form of wrong just because it is pervertedly seen as "less wrong" is the same logic that brought the world racial segregation in place of slavery or reform liberalism in place of communism.

Cheers,
Zip
http://uncommonsensecanada.blogspot.com/

Post 3

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 - 11:18am

Martin you misunderstand my position. Life is bound by the realities of economics. One may not afford the luxury of going after every single evil entity that exists, (we probably could if we didn't have wobbly allies that wish to continuously appease evil, a coalition of freedom loving nations could essentially wipe out every third world dictatorship that lives today, which are the source of all the world's problems) which must assume then it is in your rational self-interest to deal the best blow that you can against the worst enemy that is out there. That doesn't mean you tolerate the lesser threat, it means you use them to your own interest and once the bigger threat is out of the way, you can turn your attention to the lesser threat. We do this all the time with everything in life, it's called prioritization. It would be foolish to not use your resources wisely when combating threats or face the consequences of losing against evil all together.

Police departments use informants whom are generally unsavory people. These informants are usually guilty of lesser crimes but the police use them to get bigger criminal threats behind bars. Would you disagree with this practice?

Or are you with me that a coalition of freedom loving nations would eradicate tyrants from this planet all together and that you would favor this?

Post 4

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 - 12:00pm

Recognizing that we can not eradicate every tyrant in one fell swoop does not mean that there exists any 'lesser evil'. That is like saying that because I love my wife it means I must necessarily love my daughters less.

With regard to tolerating the lesser threat, nations do it all the time. Right up until Sept 11/01 the USA and the rest of us "tolerated" the Taliban, in spite of the fact that they harboured, aided and abetted the most dangerous terrorists in the world. Hell to go farther the USA armed the Mujahadeen invoking the idiotic premise that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".

No. Ignoring for a moment the lessons of history (modern and ancient) that show these types of utopian crusades are impossible at best, a coalition of "freedom loving nations" would not be able to eradicate all tyrants, if for no other reason than in the process they would become tyrants themselves.

Further there isn't a single solitary government on the face of the planet that would pass as being free, so how are nations with an imperfect understanding of freedom ever going to bring it to others?

As an aside, another reason for the 2nd Gulf War was Saddam's continual disregard for the sanctions and resolutions of the United Nations, such as "locking" onto coalition aircraft in the no fly zone with SAM radar.

Many people conveniently forget that the UN had already authorized force should the resolutions be broken. It is such a shame that the US bore the brunt of so much ill will for following the UN's resolutions to their logical conclusion. Saddam played a game of brinkmanship with the UN from day one. The US and the coalition just called all bets.

Post 5

Wednesday, November 21, 2007 - 8:48pm

Martin, your post is so riddled with fallacies where to start?

Ok here goes:

Recognizing that we can not eradicate every tyrant in one fell swoop does not mean that there exists any 'lesser evil'. That is like saying that because I love my wife it means I must necessarily love my daughters less.

With regard to tolerating the lesser threat, nations do it all the time.

We can bog ourselves down into semantics, but as you seem to recognize there is such a thing as a lesser threat/evil. Otherwise one would run the absurdity of morally equating all crimes as equally bad. Would you seriously consider murder to be the same crime as embezzlement? Obviously there are any number of degrees of evil we can talk about, to think there is no differing quantification for them is rather silly.

Right up until Sept 11/01 the USA and the rest of us "tolerated" the Taliban, in spite of the fact that they harboured, aided and abetted the most dangerous terrorists in the world.

All the more reason Western nations should've acted sooner and more swiftly to eradicate the Taliban much before 9/11. As you recall Clinton launched a half-hearted bombing campaign against a few al-Qaeda targets during the end of his Presidency (Republicans blamed him for trying to distract the national focus on his extra-marital affairs, i.e. Wag the Dog).

Hell to go farther the USA armed the Mujahadeen invoking the idiotic premise that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".

Soviet documents after the fall of the Soviet Union revealed the financial strain of fighting the US backed Mujihadeen in Afghanistan, and Reagan's armament build-up was what lead to the accelerated decline of the Soviet economy. Bringing down the most evil empire of the 20th century responsible for killing over 100 million people and bringing the world to the brink of nuclear annihilation sure was an idiotic thing huh? Your right! The mujihadeen was far more dangerous! We should've helped the Soviets dominate the rest of Central Asia and have access to warm water ports!

No. Ignoring for a moment the lessons of history (modern and ancient) that show these types of utopian crusades are impossible at best, a coalition of "freedom loving nations" would not be able to eradicate all tyrants, if for no other reason than in the process they would become tyrants themselves.

It seems you are quite selective in what history you want to choose. Historically, the West is responsible for the unprecedented level of human freedom the world enjoys today. There are far more free nations today than there ever was because the West meddled in other nations' affairs. But it is not some altruistic moral duty to eradicate these tyrants. It is in our best long term rational self-interest to rid the world of these thugs. They are the source of all the world's problems. A rogue nation handing a nuke off to a terrorist to blow up a western city? It ain't going to be Sweden doing that. Disease, war, ever more cheaper and technologically advanced weapons combined with a global economy is a recipe for disaster and all of these world ills are the result of the world's most brutal tyrants.

Further there isn't a single solitary government on the face of the planet that would pass as being free, so how are nations with an imperfect understanding of freedom ever going to bring it to others?

Imagine your argument this way Martin. There isn't a solitary judicial system on the face of the planet that would pass as being wholly just, so how are we ever going to pass judgment on criminals and lock them up behind bars if we have an imperfect understanding of justice? To expect perfection of your own system as the only possible motivator for taking action against evil is to assume one can never take action against a moral transgression unless one is morally pure. That is patently absurd. It is moral relativism to think the United States and other freedom loving nations are no better than totalitarian shit-holes, and equally absurd to take the logical conclusion of this type of thinking that our judicial system while not perfect cannot possibly effectively meet out any kind of justice. So let's let all the murderers, rapists and thieves out of our prisons while we're at it! We're not perfect so let's not bother holding evil accountable!

Post 6

Thursday, November 22, 2007 - 10:55am

How many angels will fit on the head of a pin? (I once read a doctoral dissertation in which the successful DD candidate tackled the tough question of whether or not all angels instanteously know what any one of them knows.)

Premise: According to the Armaos Taxonomy, the USSR was the most evil empire in the history of the world.  It is an easy claim to suppport, the facts being what they are -- and including China in that evil empire.

Consequence 1: However, if the Soviet Union was the most evil empire in the history of the world, then it was wrong to support them against the Nazi Germans. The Nazi Germans were the lesser of two evils and the USA and UK should have supported the fascists in their war against the communists.[1]

Consequence 1A: But then, would not the Greater German Reich by 1980 have become the most evil empire in the history of the world? Would Germany not then, also, find itself allied with Persia against the Arabs? Would the peace of the world hinge on the outcome of an Iranian-Saudi conflict?

Premise 2: Would it not have made sense, for instance, for the western nations -- including the USSR -- to have allied to eradicate mystical religions? Communism and Capitalism both derived from the Enlightenment. Rational-empiricism, positivism, and dialectic materialism are closer to each other than any is to religion. We in America do not appreciate rule of law in the old USSR and we too often fail to see them as a civil republic much like our own society.

Scholium: Both capitalism and communism are materialist philosophies. Capitalism begins with rational-empiricim which recognizes the importance of "ideas" and the "souls" (or "spirits") of individuals, but does so only enroute to understanding and mastering the physical world in order to achieve creature comforts. Communism is rooted in materialism, of course, and denies the existence of irreducible "spirits" within our bodies. (Naziism and fascism on the other hand are idealist philosophies, similiar to Islam and Christianity. Thus, it was Hitler, not Stalin, who consulted astrologers.)

Consequence 2A: In fact, with its monarch being the head of its church, the UK might be suspected of not being 100% behind a war against medieval superstition. Perhaps the USA and USSR should have helped the Labor Party to completely erase the monachy and aristocracy in the UK.

Problem: The USA and USSR did not engage in direct (nuclear) conflict because they were deterred by Mutually Assured Destruction. That seems not to work so well with Muslims.

[1] Myself, I am with Lindbergh: we should have stayed out of it entirely. Let the chips fall where they may in Europe, but keep America strong and independent.

Post 7

Friday, November 23, 2007 - 1:09pm

Consequence 1: However, if the Soviet Union was the most evil empire in the history of the world, then it was wrong to support them against the Nazi Germans. The Nazi Germans were the lesser of two evils and the USA and UK should have supported the fascists in their war against the communists.[1]

Wrong!! Try again Marotta, it was right to use them against Nazi Germany, to which it would have been right to turn right around after Germany surrendered to attack the Soviets. And too bad the civilized world didn't listen to men like Churchill, who right after Germany capitulated wanted the Allied powers minus the Soviets to keep marching east to rid the world of what he presciently predicted would be the next evil empire if they went left unchallenged.

Your premise also presumes one must be omniscient before taking action against a threat. Where a strategy might not give the desired results, the answer you give is to give up, shrivel up into your shell, and approach the world as a Pacifist, not wanting to provoke the irrational as they might just end up attacking you. Rather than adopt a rational strategy of adaption, change the strategy and identify the greatest enemy, even when that enemy may change face, you would rather act like a coward. Don't provoke the bullies, they might steal your lunch money! And not place blame on the irrational who start wars of aggression, but blame the West, for acting in their own defense.

But look what happened? Not only did the West defeat Nazism and Imperial Japan, it defeated the Soviet Union. Who's left? Two bit dictators and terrorists. To think the world is not safer now than it was a century ago because of the policies of the West is truly a measure of one's stupidity and ignorance.

(Edited by John Armaos on 11/23, 1:26pm)

Post 8

Sunday, November 25, 2007 - 7:49pm

JA: To think the world is not safer now than it was a century ago because of the policies of the West is truly a measure of one's stupidity and ignorance.

To think that {
the world is not safer now;
than it was a century ago;
because of the policies of the west.
}
== a measure of ( one's (stupidity && ignorance)).

It is my observation that the world of 1907 was a safer place than the world of 2007, depending on what we mean by safer. Typhoid and diphtheria were real killers. Researching a numismatic topic for publication, I found a historical report from the 1960s about an ANA convention in 1920 cancelled, said the writer, "because some people had the flu." She did not understand the influenza epidemics of that earlier time. Was the world safer? Not in those ways...

However, the widespread culture of capitalism had in the previous 100 years created a social milieu (at least for Europe and White America) that was the envy of today. If you were a native American or a Negro you might not be better off then than now -- though that might be debatable on several grounds: Harlem, in particular, was vibrant. There were other examples. But in terms of the international scene, the prospects for peace and prosperity seemed to be neverending.

But end they did... on the folly of the West... The assassination of the Austrian crown prince... the secret treaties... the land war between Germany and France... it all came apart because of the policies of the West.

There had also been a shift in ideology in philosophy or perhaps a shift aroudn a lacuna because in the previous hundred years from the Enlightenment to 1907 (or 1914), the West never discovered the truth about capitalism. It remained the unknown ideal. For a sad and scary scene, you have to see the original 1930 version of All Quiet on the Western Front where Paul Baeumer is sitting in his classroom rapt, wide-eyed and attentive as his professor is spouting Idealism... not the lower-case seeking the best idealism but the Hegelian kind, the kind that led to World War... after World War... after World War...

In 1907, the Pledge of Allegiance was new (1892) and unofficial, and the National Anthem, though written as a poem, was not an official song until 1916. Progressives wanted these things to make America more like Europe, to have a sense of national spirit. Well, they got that.

(Madmen hijacking not one but four rocket-powered heavier-than-air craft and directing them into twin towers of Asgaardian proportions would have been H. G. Wells's worst nightmare... Wells's War in the Air (Things to Come) had the British base at Basra as the last refuge of salvation for the world... The British still have an expeditionary force at Basra, but as for the rest, it would have been hard to explain to any polymath of 1907.)

I do not know whose stupidity and ignorance is being measured here, but there is never a shortage of it, no matter whose you quantify or by what standard.

Post 9

Sunday, November 25, 2007 - 8:09pm

John Armaos suggested: "... the civilized world didn't listen to men like Churchill, who right after Germany capitulated wanted the Allied powers minus the Soviets to keep marching east to rid the world of ..."

Churchill, the field marshall of Galliopoli was going to achieve what Napoleon and Hitler had failed to do... after the USA had already armed the USSR via the same Lend-Lease as the UK needed because (stop me if I err here) Ingsoc had failed to produce the war material that Airstrip One of Oceania needed to defend itself against Eurasia.

Even if a thrust against the Russian ground forces had been successful -- a huge if -- nuking Moscow, perhaps and just leaving it... that would only have played into the hand of Stalin whose Marxist-Leninist eschatology would have been validated by an invasion. The communist Russians would have fought like demons -- and had their communist fifth columnists in the USA, UK, Europe, etc., in support. To root them out, civil liberties would have had to come to a complete secessation in the West.

Perhaps the UK-USA could have pushed them east of the Urals (as Hitler had wanted), but then there would have been an east Asian state (called East Asia in some scripts) of the communists from Russia occupying Siberia, plus the Chinese communists. Heck, Ulan Batur might have been their new capital.

Let the angels find standing room on the pin, so we can discuss these what-if / if-only scenarios: 1984, The Iron Dream, The Iron Heel, Looking Backward, Things to Come, The Man in the High Castle, "The Woodrow Wilson Dime"... We might as well take out the board games and play Risk or Diplomacy -- just write in the names you prefer. (Ever play Objectivist Monopoly where there is no Income Tax?)

Post 10

Tuesday, November 27, 2007 - 6:25am

I think we could have negotiated better and not backed down and let them occupy so much of Eastern Europe, but an actual war was not a good idea.

Post 11

Saturday, February 9, 2008 - 8:29am

Violations of 'Islamic teachings' take deadly toll on Iraqi women

CNN.com updated 9:26 a.m. EST, Fri February 8, 2008

The women are killed, police say, because they failed to wear a headscarf or because they ignored other "rules" that secretive fundamentalist groups want to enforce.

The attacks on the women of Basra have intensified since British forces withdrew to their base at the airport back in September, police say. Iraqi security forces took over after British troops pulled back, but are heavily infiltrated by militias.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/02/08/iraq.women/index.html

The General Federation of Iraqi Women was established in the early 1970s, after Saddam Hussein and the Baʿthist Party assumed political power. Its stated goals were to improve the situation of Iraqi women and to marshal their skills in the task of building an Arab socialist state. Campaigns were launched to promote literacy, better childcare, maternity leave, improve wages, and promote women within the economic sector and in politics. An arts committee was established later. By all accounts, the federation was responsible, at least in part, for the many gains made by Iraq's women in the last quarter of the twentieth century and for Iraq's record on women's rights, which, before the U.S. invasion in 2003, were often cited as the best in the Arab world. As of 2004, literacy rates for women are close to 50 percent but were much higher before the 1991 Gulf War. According to federation officials, before the Gulf War all women received one full year of maternity leave: six months with full pay and six months with half pay, plus six weeks at the time of the baby's birth. (This was independently confirmed by the author in 1996 interviews in Iraq.)
� ELIZABETH FERNEA
http://www.answers.com/topic/general-federation-of-iraqi-women

Post 12

Tuesday, February 12, 2008 - 8:21am

MEM: Saddam Hussein was a thug, a socialist-militarist brute... but a secular socialist-militarist brute. The USA toppled his government because he threatened Iran and Saudi Arabia.

John Armaos: False!!! Wrong answer, try that one again Marotta. First of all you have your two Iraq wars jumbled up. He threatened to gain a foothold on a majority of the world's oil supply which is why the first action against Iraq in 1991 took place. The second action took place in 2003 because of a continued desire by Saddam Hussein to garner weapons of mass destruction combined with his explicit financial support for Islamo-fascist groups Hamas and Hezbollah whom have killed Americans, Israelis, and Europeans. He threatened the United States and its citizens, that was the reason for toppling his government. Nice try smuggling that bullshit premise in.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/02/12/saudi.valentine/index.html
February 12, 2008 07:50 EST
Saudi Arabia bans all things red ahead of Valentine's Day
(CNN) -- Saudi Arabia has asked florists and gift shops to remove all red items until after Valentine's Day, calling the celebration of such a holiday a sin, local media reported Monday.
With a ban on red gift items over Valentine's Day in Saudi Arabia, a black market in red roses has flowered.
"As Muslims we shouldn't celebrate a non-Muslim celebration, especially this one that encourages immoral relations between unmarried men and women, " Sheikh Khaled Al-Dossari, a scholar in Islamic studies, told the Saudi Gazette, an English-language newspaper.
Every year, officials with the conservative Muslim kingdom's Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice clamp down on shops a few days before February 14, instructing them to remove red roses, red wrapping paper, gift boxes and teddy bears. On the eve of the holiday, they raid stores and seize symbols of love.
The virtue and vice squad is a police force of several thousand charged with, among other things, enforcing dress codes and segregating the sexes. Saudi Arabia, which follows a strict interpretation of Islam called Wahhabism, punishes unrelated women and men who mingle in public.
----------------

John, Saudi Arabia does control the oil supply and Saudi Arabia is where the Wahabbi who carried out the 9/11 terrorist attacks came from.

So, why does the USA not go to war against Saudi Arabia?

The answer is that Weltpolitik ist Realpolitik. There is no morality. It is all a matter of expediency. American oil interests are presently tied to the Saudis... and vice versa... Saudi Arabia has bought into the USA. It was the Saudis who were threatened by Saddam Hussein after the invasion of Kuwait. The Saudis knew that their own people would not fight. They knew that their imported workers would not fight. So, they paid for the Americans (and the Allied Coalition) to fight for them. P. J. O'Roarke said it best: "What is the Saudi national anthem? Onward Christian Soldiers."

It has nothing to do with islamo-fascism or any of that malarky, because if it was about islamo-fascism, someone would want to know when there will be free and open elections in Saudi Arabia. In fact, Israel has a communist party that is explicitly anti-Zionist. It is a minority, but it gets seats in the Knesset and its representatives are sometimes women and often ethnic Arabs. So, how about a parliament in Saudi Arabia where Jewish women represent an anti-Islamist party? I mean, you know, if this is really about islamo-fascism...

So, with Saddam Hussein gone now for five years, by your logic, Hamas and Hizbollah should have dried up and blown away. Where do these people get their money from? The USA seized assets all over the place, worldwide. Where does the money come from? Afghans? Moroccans? Where? Where is there enough money to finance a 60 year war against Israel in particular and the West in general? The Soviet Union? Long gone... Who's left.... Hmmmm... could it be SATAN?! ...

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 2/12, 8:27am)

Post 13

Wednesday, May 21, 2008 - 9:16am

Iraqi: 'I killed her with a machine gun'

Story Highlights
Residents of Basra have begun telling stories of militia massacres
Mom says one son was killed for drinking alcohol, two others slain for their car
Authorities: Man admits to killed 15 girls, including one 9 year old
Dad in park says, "It's the first time that we have dared to come here in two years"

CNN was shown what authorities say was his first confession. On it are the names of 15 girls whom he admitted kidnapping, raping and killing. The youngest girl on the list was just 9 years old.

Basra turned into a battleground between warring Shiite factions vying for control of the country's oil-rich south after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. Basra's streets teemed with Shiite militias armed with weapons, mostly from Iran, according to the Iraqi forces and the U.S. military.

For four years after the invasion, Basra was under the control of British forces, but they were unable to contain the violence and withdrew in September last year.

Women bore the brunt of the militias' extremist ideologies. The militants spray-painted threats on walls across Basra, warning women to wear headscarves and not to wear make-up. Women were sometimes executed for the vague charge of doing something "un-Islamic."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/meast/05/20/basra.killings/index.html

Post 14

Monday, May 26, 2008 - 8:19am