Surely some were, but quite a few were on the fence and decided to voice a guarded support after intense marketing and campaigning by the administration and its allies.
I think that's part of the reason support is sagging so much now - Americans weren't that enthusiastic about it to begin with.
I find it a ridiculous notion that the victims of any crime or their family should choose the punishment for the offender. It can hardly be expected that they would choose something fair and reasonable.
Well, just how "fair and reasonable" is it whenever someone loses their loved ones forever to a murderer? Life is hardly ever "fair and reasonble" my friend. And what I was suggesting was obviously hypothetical (LaserWolf). Something like that would never happen (although I personally tend to think that it's only "fair and reasonable"). And I wouldn't be so quick to assume that everyone would automatically choose the death penalty in some sort of blind rage of vengeance. You quite often see the families of victims speaking out against capital punishment, if not altogether forgiving the perp outright. As "ridiculous" as I personally might think that to be.
Of course I don't think it's fair and reasonable for someone to lose their loved ones and I know life isn't always fair. I don't see that as a reason to give up trying to aim for it though.
I'm also not saying that all victims family members would want the perpertrator to die, but giving them the choice of punishment would more likely make it more of a revenge system than a justice system.
Of course I don't think it's fair and reasonable for someone to lose their loved ones and I know life isn't always fair. I don't see that as a reason to give up trying to aim for it though.
I'm also not saying that all victims family members would want the perpertrator to die, but giving them the choice of punishment would more likely make it more of a revenge system than a justice system.
That all depends on what your idea of "justice" is. For a man to pay the ultimate price for the ultimate crime is justice in many eyes. Mine included. The notion of having the victim's family helping to make the decision that would lead to that outcome simply brings about another dimension to the idea of justice being served. It does make it more personal, and as such is probably not a great idea for a host of reasons. Also, as I have stated before, it remains purely hypothetical (as does the realization of a "fair and reasonable" world). But that is not "revenge" at all. Revenge would be taking the law into their own hands and killing the perp on their own, sans trial by judge or jury.
And quite frankly, I see a whole lot of people in Iraq today who are certainly in favor of the sentence that's been delivered.
I find it interesting the level this dialogue is operating on, as if the physical elimination of Saddam was at all of importance. C'mon people, the truth behind this verdict is that it will further tensions in Iraq, perpetuate more violence, and little in the way of stability and "self-determination" for the Iraqi people. And as for the above quote, where did you see this news? CNN? One of the major networks? Because there were plenty of people protesting the sentence as well. Sure, Saddam did bad things, but again we see the U.S. playing world arbiter, deciding on the fate of nations to further their own wealth. You're naive to think this is playing out any other way. Do we see Rumseld being held accountable? Bush? Fuck people, all this "he's getting what he deserves" sounds so implacably patriotic.
1) I think this CW that Saddam's execution will inflame tensions is very naive. I expect his pending demise will have the opposite effect. One of the stated goals of the Ba'athists, who have deliberately started this civil war, is to return their leader to power. Saddam's Iraq was a cult of personality, much like Stalin, where the subject's identity was defined through the worship of the despot. By hanging the leader and snuffing out any possibility of returning Iraq to the nightmare it was before this current nightmare, it could go a long way in demoralizing an important faction of the car bombers.
2) America was an arbiter in a sense. This trial and sentence would have been impossible without the intervention. However, the trial was for the most part an Iraqi affair. Indeed, the chief complaint of human rights organizations, that the trial was not fair and should have been conducted in the Hague, would have deprived Iraqis from trying their tormentor.
3) It's just incorrect to think most Iraqis do not support the hanging of Saddam.
4) The last two sentences, asking if Bush or Rumsfeld are "being held accountable," implies that you think they deserve the same fate as Saddam. And if you believe this, then you have a deficit of moral reasoning and an allergy to evidence.
4) The last two sentences, asking if Bush or Rumsfeld are "being held accountable," implies that you think they deserve the same fate as Saddam. And if you believe this, then you have a deficit of moral reasoning and an allergy to evidence.
That's a leap of logic, Vitamin. The point was that Bush and Rumsfield have yet to be held accountable in any direct way for their actions. If the point here is that SH has to answer for his actions, then the question posed was why aren't the same standards applied to GB or DR? This doesn't argue for the execution of the latter two men, rather that the same kind of application of "consequences for actions" be applied to two men who've created what even you have admitted has been a disastrous policy in Iraq.
4) The last two sentences, asking if Bush or Rumsfeld are "being held accountable," implies that you think they deserve the same fate as Saddam. And if you believe this, then you have a deficit of moral reasoning and an allergy to evidence.
That's a leap of logic, Vitamin. The point was that Bush and Rumsfield have yet to be held accountable in any direct way for their actions. If the point here is that SH has to answer for his actions, then the question posed was why aren't the same standards applied to GB or DR? This doesn't argue for the execution of the latter two men, rather that the same kind of application of "consequences for actions" be applied to two men who've created what even you have admitted has been a disastrous policy in Iraq.
Dub, if the independent polling is correct, then your statement will be inoperative tomorrow. There will be political consequences for a bungled war--as well there should be. But this is my point. Bush, Cheney and Rummy are not war criminals, they are failed leaders. The consequences they should face must be restricted to the political realm. The statement from Guy implies that Saddam and Bush are just as bad. I think this fails to distinguish between people who sought to destroy Iraq and people who failed to liberate it. It is in this sense soft on war crimes.
For what it's worth, I hope the Democrats do not win the House. This is because I think the party will make it politically impossible to pursue victory in Iraq, by focusing their oversight on the phantasm of pre-war intelligence as opposed to the much more scandalous failures during the occupation. I also think that many Democrats are all too willing to abandon Iraq--before even the elected parliament formally asks us to. But this is just me. I do not think the Bush administration should be immune to oversight, nor do I think they do not deserve a political ass whipping. My ideal scenario would be a divided house, whereby pro-victory ds and rs summoned Paul Bremer, the CEOs of Halliburton, and others to the stand to explain what is frankly inexplicable--the bungled efforts to rebuild power grids, the graft of local tribal leaders, the planes of cash flown to Beirut and Amman, the dungeons inside the interior ministry. I loathe the prospect of another round of pre-war intelligence hearings (which the Dems most certainly will pursue) because it 1) tells our volunteer army that they are fighting for a lie; and 2) relies on the most tendentious nonsense and self serving testimony of our cowardly intelligence bureaucracy. An irony of the current debate about intel and neocons is that so much of the claim that THE NEOCONS LIED TO US is based on testimony from a bureaucracy of professional liars--what do you think the CIA was doing for so many years in their psy-ops. It's for another day and another debate, but the Democratic Party's allegiance to the CIA is an astounding betrayal for liberals who always sought to shine a light on the secret government.
On a totally different note, I wish Nas would just release a whole record based on Inagaddadavida loops. I've always liked him, even in the Oochy Wally phase.
On a totally different note, I wish Nas would just release a whole record based on Inagaddadavida loops. I've always liked him, even in the Oochy Wally phase.
1) I think this CW that Saddam's execution will inflame tensions is very naive. I expect his pending demise will have the opposite effect. One of the stated goals of the Ba'athists, who have deliberately started this civil war, is to return their leader to power. Saddam's Iraq was a cult of personality, much like Stalin, where the subject's identity was defined through the worship of the despot. By hanging the leader and snuffing out any possibility of returning Iraq to the nightmare it was before this current nightmare, it could go a long way in demoralizing an important faction of the car bombers.
I hope you are right on this one. Your track record on how Iraqis will react is a little bruised.
4) The last two sentences, asking if Bush or Rumsfeld are "being held accountable," implies that you think they deserve the same fate as Saddam. And if you believe this, then you have a deficit of moral reasoning and an allergy to evidence.
That's a leap of logic, Vitamin. The point was that Bush and Rumsfield have yet to be held accountable in any direct way for their actions. If the point here is that SH has to answer for his actions, then the question posed was why aren't the same standards applied to GB or DR? This doesn't argue for the execution of the latter two men, rather that the same kind of application of "consequences for actions" be applied to two men who've created what even you have admitted has been a disastrous policy in Iraq.
Dub, if the independent polling is correct, then your statement will be inoperative tomorrow. There will be political consequences for a bungled war--as well there should be. But this is my point. Bush, Cheney and Rummy are not war criminals, they are failed leaders. The consequences they should face must be restricted to the political realm. The statement from Guy implies that Saddam and Bush are just as bad. I think this fails to distinguish between people who sought to destroy Iraq and people who failed to liberate it. It is in this sense soft on war crimes.
For what it's worth, I hope the Democrats do not win the House. This is because I think the party will make it politically impossible to pursue victory in Iraq, by focusing their oversight on the phantasm of pre-war intelligence as opposed to the much more scandalous failures during the occupation. I also think that many Democrats are all too willing to abandon Iraq--before even the elected parliament formally asks us to. But this is just me. I do not think the Bush administration should be immune to oversight, nor do I think they do not deserve a political ass whipping. My ideal scenario would be a divided house, whereby pro-victory ds and rs summoned Paul Bremer, the CEOs of Halliburton, and others to the stand to explain what is frankly inexplicable--the bungled efforts to rebuild power grids, the graft of local tribal leaders, the planes of cash flown to Beirut and Amman, the dungeons inside the interior ministry. I loathe the prospect of another round of pre-war intelligence hearings (which the Dems most certainly will pursue) because it 1) tells our volunteer army that they are fighting for a lie; and 2) relies on the most tendentious nonsense and self serving testimony of our cowardly intelligence bureaucracy. An irony of the current debate about intel and neocons is that so much of the claim that THE NEOCONS LIED TO US is based on testimony from a bureaucracy of professional liars--what do you think the CIA was doing for so many years in their psy-ops. It's for another day and another debate, but the Democratic Party's allegiance to the CIA is an astounding betrayal for liberals who always sought to shine a light on the secret government.
On a totally different note, I wish Nas would just release a whole record based on Inagaddadavida loops. I've always liked him, even in the Oochy Wally phase.
Vita, when are you going call this administration to the carpet? Bush is still walking around saying we're winning this conflict. Saying that Bremmer and Haliburton are the prime suspects in the failure in Iraq is like saying my 4 month old is responsible for wiping his own ass. Ultimately, whether Junior's ass is clean is my responsibility cause I'm in charge over at 222 Monroe (mi casa).
I am interested to see what comes out of the Baker comission. Will Bush listen or will he undermine it? I think after tonight's election it would be a disaster not to find a political solution at home so we can end this war in responsible and effective manner.
Baker works for Bush. The "report" or whatever he produces will provide Bush a nice little exit strategy. They're not genuinely going to be at odds on anything. They both want to see Bush save face following his massive failures in Iraq.
Comments
I believe you're right, Jonny.
Of course I don't think it's fair and reasonable for someone to lose their loved ones and I know life isn't always fair. I don't see that as a reason to give up trying to aim for it though.
I'm also not saying that all victims family members would want the perpertrator to die, but giving them the choice of punishment would more likely make it more of a revenge system than a justice system.
That all depends on what your idea of "justice" is.
For a man to pay the ultimate price for the ultimate crime is justice in many eyes. Mine included.
The notion of having the victim's family helping to make the decision that would lead to that outcome simply brings about another dimension to the idea of justice being served.
It does make it more personal, and as such is probably not a great idea for a host of reasons.
Also, as I have stated before, it remains purely hypothetical (as does the realization of a "fair and reasonable" world).
But that is not "revenge" at all.
Revenge would be taking the law into their own hands and killing the perp on their own, sans trial by judge or jury.
1) I think this CW that Saddam's execution will inflame tensions is very naive. I expect his pending demise will have the opposite effect. One of the stated goals of the Ba'athists, who have deliberately started this civil war, is to return their leader to power. Saddam's Iraq was a cult of personality, much like Stalin, where the subject's identity was defined through the worship of the despot. By hanging the leader and snuffing out any possibility of returning Iraq to the nightmare it was before this current nightmare, it could go a long way in demoralizing an important faction of the car bombers.
2) America was an arbiter in a sense. This trial and sentence would have been impossible without the intervention. However, the trial was for the most part an Iraqi affair. Indeed, the chief complaint of human rights organizations, that the trial was not fair and should have been conducted in the Hague, would have deprived Iraqis from trying their tormentor.
3) It's just incorrect to think most Iraqis do not support the hanging of Saddam.
4) The last two sentences, asking if Bush or Rumsfeld are "being held accountable," implies that you think they deserve the same fate as Saddam. And if you believe this, then you have a deficit of moral reasoning and an allergy to evidence.
That's a leap of logic, Vitamin. The point was that Bush and Rumsfield have yet to be held accountable in any direct way for their actions. If the point here is that SH has to answer for his actions, then the question posed was why aren't the same standards applied to GB or DR? This doesn't argue for the execution of the latter two men, rather that the same kind of application of "consequences for actions" be applied to two men who've created what even you have admitted has been a disastrous policy in Iraq.
Dub, if the independent polling is correct, then your statement will be inoperative tomorrow. There will be political consequences for a bungled war--as well there should be. But this is my point. Bush, Cheney and Rummy are not war criminals, they are failed leaders. The consequences they should face must be restricted to the political realm. The statement from Guy implies that Saddam and Bush are just as bad. I think this fails to distinguish between people who sought to destroy Iraq and people who failed to liberate it. It is in this sense soft on war crimes.
For what it's worth, I hope the Democrats do not win the House. This is because I think the party will make it politically impossible to pursue victory in Iraq, by focusing their oversight on the phantasm of pre-war intelligence as opposed to the much more scandalous failures during the occupation. I also think that many Democrats are all too willing to abandon Iraq--before even the elected parliament formally asks us to. But this is just me. I do not think the Bush administration should be immune to oversight, nor do I think they do not deserve a political ass whipping. My ideal scenario would be a divided house, whereby pro-victory ds and rs summoned Paul Bremer, the CEOs of Halliburton, and others to the stand to explain what is frankly inexplicable--the bungled efforts to rebuild power grids, the graft of local tribal leaders, the planes of cash flown to Beirut and Amman, the dungeons inside the interior ministry. I loathe the prospect of another round of pre-war intelligence hearings (which the Dems most certainly will pursue) because it 1) tells our volunteer army that they are fighting for a lie; and 2) relies on the most tendentious nonsense and self serving testimony of our cowardly intelligence bureaucracy. An irony of the current debate about intel and neocons is that so much of the claim that THE NEOCONS LIED TO US is based on testimony from a bureaucracy of professional liars--what do you think the CIA was doing for so many years in their psy-ops. It's for another day and another debate, but the Democratic Party's allegiance to the CIA is an astounding betrayal for liberals who always sought to shine a light on the secret government.
On a totally different note, I wish Nas would just release a whole record based on Inagaddadavida loops. I've always liked him, even in the Oochy Wally phase.
That we can agree upon.
1) I think this CW that Saddam's execution will inflame tensions is very naive. I expect his pending demise will have the opposite effect. One of the stated goals of the Ba'athists, who have deliberately started this civil war, is to return their leader to power. Saddam's Iraq was a cult of personality, much like Stalin, where the subject's identity was defined through the worship of the despot. By hanging the leader and snuffing out any possibility of returning Iraq to the nightmare it was before this current nightmare, it could go a long way in demoralizing an important faction of the car bombers.
I hope you are right on this one. Your track record on how Iraqis will react is a little bruised.
Vita, when are you going call this administration to the carpet? Bush is still walking around saying we're winning this conflict. Saying that Bremmer and Haliburton are the prime suspects in the failure in Iraq is like saying my 4 month old is responsible for wiping his own ass. Ultimately, whether Junior's ass is clean is my responsibility cause I'm in charge over at 222 Monroe (mi casa).
I am interested to see what comes out of the Baker comission. Will Bush listen or will he undermine it? I think after tonight's election it would be a disaster not to find a political solution at home so we can end this war in responsible and effective manner.