|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Nov 5, 2006 10:29:32 GMT -5
There are a lot of uncertainties associated with this decision. One is the possible increase in sectarian violence. Another might be how other Sunni-dominated countries (like Saudi Arabia) in the area might react to this verdict. Saddam Hussein sentenced to death Last Updated: Sunday, November 5, 2006 | 9:16 AM ET CBC News
Saddam Hussein was found guilty of crimes against humanity on Sunday and sentenced to hang for the 1982 killing of 148 Shia Muslims in a town north of Baghdad.
The former Iraqi president shouted "God is Great" and "You are servants of the occupiers — you are traitors," before Judge Raouf Abdel Rahman finished reading the verdict and sentence.
"Life for us and death to our enemies, death to the enemies of the people. Long live this glorious nation and death to the enemies," Saddam said as four guards took him out of the courtroom.
His chief lawyer later issued a statement, saying Saddam wanted Iraqis to reject the sectarian violence that could increase in the wake of the verdict.
"The president said that 'Saddam Hussein won't be defeated,'" lawyer Khalil al-Dulaimi told the Associated Press. "He said the people will remain strong and steadfast."
The court had heard that Saddam ordered the 148 executions in revenge for an assassination attempt in Dujail, 65 kilometres north of Baghdad. Saddam is a Sunni Muslim and his government was dominated by the country's Sunni minority.
Half-brother sentenced to death
Two of Saddam's senior aides, including his half-brother Barzan al-Tikriti (also known as Barzan Ibrahim) and Awad Hamad al-Bandar al-Saadun, the head of Iraq's former Revolutionary Court, were also sentenced to hang.
A former Iraqi vice president, Taha Yassin Ramadan, was convicted of premeditated murder and sentenced to life in prison.
Three defendants were sentenced to 15 years in prison for torture and premeditated murder. Abdullah Khadem Ruweid, his son Mezhar Abdullah Ruweid and Ali Daeh Ali were party officials in Dujail. They were believed responsible for the Dujail arrests.
Another co-defendant, Baath party official, Mohammed Assam Al-Ali, was acquitted. Celebratory gunfire in Shia neighbourhoods
Some feared the verdicts could intensify sectarian violence after a trial that stretched over nine months. Clashes immediately broke out Sunday in northern Baghdad's heavily Sunni Azamiyah district.
"This government will be responsible for the consequences, with the deaths of hundreds, thousands or even hundreds of thousands, whose blood will be shed," Salih al-Mutlaq, a Sunni political leader, told the al-Arabiya satellite television station.
In Saddam's hometown of Tikrit, about 1,000 people defied a curfew that began on Saturday and carried pictures of the former leader through the streets.
Elsewhere in the capital, celebratory gunfire rang out.
Many Iraqis cheered the verdict in the predominantly Shia district of east Baghdad, known as Sadr City. During his 24 years as president, Saddam favoured his Sunni minority for top government jobs and persecuted the Shia majority and the Kurds. Lawyers plan appeal
Saddam's chief lawyer condemned Saddam's trial as a "farce," claiming the verdict was planned before it was handed down by the panel of judges, who were appointed by the former Iraqi Governing Council with U.S., British and Australian support. He said the defence team would appeal within 30 days.
The death sentences automatically go to a nine-judge appeal panel, which has unlimited time to review the case. If the verdicts and sentences are upheld, the executions must be carried out within 30 days.
"Since Day One, we said the trial was politically motivated 100 per cent and that it's completely illegal," said defence lawyer Khalil al-Dulaimi. "The defence voice was not allowed to be heard at all."
Al-Dulaimi also said that the security situation in Baghdad was "very dangerous."
"Iranian intelligence and U.S. invaders are patrolling around. There's nobody else on the streets," he said. "Baghdad looks like a ghost town."
Saddam's government was toppled in April 2003 during a campaign led by U.S. forces, on the assertion that Iraq possessed hidden stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. No evidence was found to support that claim.
After an intense manhunt, Saddam was captured by American soldiers in December 2003 at a farmhouse in the town of Adwar, not far from his hometown of Tikrit.
It wasn't immediately clear what effect the verdict would have on a second trial for Saddam, which started in late August and in which he and six others face charges of genocide and war crimes against Kurds opened in connection with a poison gas attack on the Kurdish village of Halabja in 1988.Baghdad looks like a ghost town
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 5, 2006 12:24:20 GMT -5
I'm so disappointed that they are actually going to kill him. I am beginning to believe that SOME fanatics deserve him.
|
|
|
Post by clear observer on Nov 5, 2006 14:53:26 GMT -5
I say ship him back to play "clean-up". What a great curveball THAT would be for that region.
CO
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Nov 6, 2006 1:52:08 GMT -5
God is great.
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Nov 6, 2006 9:47:54 GMT -5
the predictable ending of the bogus trial of a real criminal. Very Nuremberg like.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Nov 6, 2006 10:31:05 GMT -5
Bush is using this verdict to vindicate his war on Iraq. Yet, neither he or his administration will admit to the mess they're leaving Iraq and the Iraqi people in. The world is indeed split by this verdict. The cultures are drifting further apart. Not good. World split over Saddam verdict
By WILLIAM J. KOLE
AP) - Saddam Hussein's death sentence was celebrated by some on Sunday as justice deserved or even divine, but denounced by others as a political ploy two days before critical U.S. midterm congressional elections.
Worldwide, the range of reactions - including a European outcry over capital punishment and doubts about the fairness of the tribunal that ordered Saddam to hang - reflected new geopolitical fault lines drawn after America's decision to invade Iraq in 2003 and depose its dictator.
The European Union welcomed the verdict but said Saddam should not be put to death. At the Vatican, Renato Cardinal Martino, Pope Benedict's top prelate for justice issues, called the sentence a throwback to "eye for an eye" vengeance.
"This is not the way to present the new Iraq to the world, which is different from Saddam, who was behind hundreds of thousands of deaths as well as death penalty sentences," said Hands Off Cain, an Italian organization working to rid the world of capital punishment.
Islamic leaders warned that executing Saddam could inflame those who revile the U.S., undermining President Bush's policy in the Middle East and inspiring terrorists.
"The hanging of Saddam Hussein will turn to hell for the Americans," said Vitaya Wisethrat, a respected Muslim cleric in Thailand, which has its own Islamic insurgency in the country's south.
"The Saddam case is not a Muslim problem but the problem of America and its domestic politics," he said. "Maybe Bush will use this case to tell the voters that Saddam is dead and that the Americans are safe. But actually the American people will be in more danger with the death of Saddam."
Bush called the verdict "a milestone in the Iraqi people's efforts to replace the rule of a tyrant with the rule of law."
Praising the Iraqi judiciary for its independence, the White House denied arranging for the verdict to be announced just two days before pivotal elections in which Democrats are fighting for control of Congress.
"The idea is preposterous," said Tony Snow, Bush's spokesman.
Minister of Foreign Affairs Peter MacKay called Saddam's trial "open" and "transparent", but said it would be preemtive to pass judgements or make public declarations until the appeal process was over.
"Obviously there is an impact on the ground that we have to be very cognizant of, but I suspect as with most processes, this will delay the inevitable," MacKay said.
Yet there was a touch of contempt as well, reminiscent of the international response when the United States failed to find the weapons of mass destruction Bush insisted had made Saddam such a threat.
Intervening militarily was "a grave error," said Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, whose country withdrew its troops from Iraq, contending that conditions there have worsened since the U.S.-led invasion.
Although some voiced doubts that Saddam would actually be hanged, the International Federation for Human Rights denounced the death sentence, warning that it "will generate more violence and deepen the cycle of killing for revenge in Iraq." The Council of Europe called it "futile and wrong" to execute Saddam.
Louise Arbour, the UN high commissioner for human rights, urged Iraq to ensure a fair appeals process and to refrain from executing Saddam even if the sentence is upheld.
In Pakistan, an opposition religious coalition claimed American forces have caused more deaths in Iraq in the past 3 1/2 years than Saddam did during his 23-year rule, and insisted Bush should stand trial for war crimes.
"Who will punish the Americans and their lackeys who have killed many more people than Saddam Hussein?" asked Hafiz Hussain Ahmed, a senior legislator from the Mutahida Majlis-e-Amal coalition, which is critical of Pakistan's military cooperation with the United States.
In the Arab world, some Muslims saw the sentence as divine retribution, but others decried it as a farce.
"Saddam is being judged by traitors, Americans and Iranians, and those who came on the backs of American tanks," said Mahmoud al-Saifi of the Arab Liberation Front.
Iran, which fought an eight-year war against Saddam's Iraq and is a bitter opponent of the United States, praised the death sentence and said it hoped that Saddam - denounced by one legislator as "a vampire" - still would be tried for other crimes.
Key U.S. allies - including Britain and Australia - welcomed Sunday's verdict, which had been widely expected.
"Appalling crimes were committed by Saddam Hussein's regime. It is right that those accused of such crimes against the Iraqi people should face Iraqi justice," British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett said in a statement.
"The whole process of the trial is a sign of democratic hope and I believe the world should see it as such," Australian Prime Minister John Howard told the Nine Network television.
Amnesty International questioned the fairness of the trial, and international legal experts said Saddam should be kept alive long enough to answer for other atrocities.
"The longer we can keep Saddam alive, the longer the tribunal can have to explore some of the other crimes involving hundreds of thousands of Iraqis," said Sonya Sceats, an international law expert at the Chatham House foreign affairs think tank in London.
"The problem really is that this tribunal has not shown itself to be fair and impartial - not only by international standards, but by Iraqi standards," she said.
Chandra Muzaffar, president of the Malaysian-based International Movement for a Just World, also voiced concerns that Saddam's trial "violated many established norms of international jurisprudence."
Even so, "Saddam was undoubtedly a brutal dictator, and even though I wouldn't subscribe to the death penalty, he deserves to be punished severely for the enormity of his crimes," he added.
Konstantin Kosachyov, the Kremlin-allied head of the international affairs committee in Russia's State Duma, or lower house of parliament, said the sentence would deepen divisions in Iraq.
But Kosachyov expressed doubts that Saddam would actually be executed.
The verdict, he said, was mostly symbolic - "retribution that modern Iraq is taking against Saddam's regime." cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2006/11/06/2253275-ap.html
|
|
|
Post by Doc Holliday on Nov 6, 2006 11:42:02 GMT -5
The basis of the Invasion were wrong.
Iraq has not been made a better or safer place but instead been pushed into a chaotic, civial waresque, 3rd world kinda country.
They're now going to turn a criminal into a martyre.
...one goof after the other and it just keeps getting worst.
How will we ever convince anyone from that area that we're not the brutal thugs we've been acting like since the beginning of this. I fear that one day, retribution will be terrible.
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Nov 6, 2006 12:45:40 GMT -5
I always thought that the smartest thing Osama bin Laden could do would be to surrender.
To the Vatican.
Imagine the mess that would create?? Imagine the Pope handing off a "revered" Muslim leader to be executed by the Great Satan? Oh, as they say, dear.
Saddam Hussein deserves to be executed, and as Doc says there was never any doubt the court was going to reach that verdict (image if they acquitted him??). But I don't think it's going to help the Western world all that much. Probably the exact opposite.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Nov 6, 2006 13:54:59 GMT -5
The tip of the iceberg. I just hope they keep it over there. Death for Saddam underlines political divide
By CHRISTOPHER BODEEN
BAGHDAD (AP) - Jubilant Shiites marched by the hundreds Monday, celebrating Saddam Hussein's conviction and death sentence, while Sunnis held counter-demonstrations.
But the surge in violence expected after Sunday's verdict and sentenced in Saddam's trial for crimes against humanity did not immediately materialize. An Interior Ministry spokesman credited a round-the-clock curfew in Baghdad, which has a mixed Shiite-Sunni population, and in two restive Sunni provinces.
Checkpoints were also closed along Iraq's border with Jordan and Syria, a standard precaution taken during domestic emergencies.
Officials said the clampdown, which brought additional patrols and checkpoints in the capital, would likely be lifted by Tuesday morning. On Monday, Baghdad was largely quiet, with offices and the international airport closed and few cars or pedestrians on the streets.
"We need to keep on guard over any kind of response from Saddam supporters," Brig. Abdel-Karim Khalaf said.
In mainly Shiite Hillah, 95 kilometres south of Baghdad, around 500 people marched carrying placards and shouting slogans denouncing the former dictator, who is accused of killing tens of thousands of Shiites following a 1991 uprising.
"Yes, yes for the verdict, which we have long been waiting for!" chanted the crowd, largely made up of students and government workers.
At least three people were wounded after gunfire broke out at a Shiite rally in the southwestern Baghdad neighbourhood of Amil, a mixed Shiite-Sunni area, police Lt. Maithem Abdel-Razaq said.
Ethnic Kurds, who like Iraq's majority Shiites suffered brutal persecution under Saddam, abandoned plans for a celebration rally in the northern city of Mosul over security concerns, said Ghayath al-Sorchi, an official with the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, which is led by Iraqi President Jalal Talabani.
Al-Sorchi said PUK activists instead distributed gifts to families who lost relatives in crackdowns under Saddam. Saddam is scheduled to appear in court again on Tuesday, when proceedings resume against him and six co-defendants in a separate trial over a crackdown against Iraqi Kurds in the late 1980s - the so-called Anfal case.
Underscoring the widening divide between Shiite and Sunni, about 250 pro-Saddam demonstrators took to the streets in the Sunni city of Baqouba, 55 kilometres northeast of Baghdad. They were dispersed by Iraqi soldiers for breaking the curfew. Another 400 pro-Saddam protesters marched through Samarra, 95 kilometres north of Baghdad.
The curfew was temporarily lifted in Tikrit to give allow residents to shop and run errands. Angry crowds had gathered in the city on Sunday, holding aloft Saddam portraits, firing guns and chanting slogans vowing to avenge his execution.
Saddam was sentenced by the Iraqi High Tribunal for ordering the execution of nearly 150 Shiites from the city of Dujail following a 1982 attempt on his life.
Barzan Ibrahim, Saddam's half brother and intelligence chief during the Dujail killings, was sentenced to join him on the gallows, as was Awad Hamed al-Bandar, head of Iraq's Revolutionary Court, which issued the death sentences against the Dujail residents.
Former Vice-President Taha Yassin Ramadan was convicted of premeditated murder and sentenced to life in prison, while three other defendants were given up to 15 years in prison for torture and premeditated murder. A local Baath party official was acquitted for lack of evidence.
Iraq's president, whose office must ratify the death penalty sentence against Saddam if it is upheld on appeal, said from Paris on Sunday that the trial of the ousted Iraqi leader was fair.
However, Jalal Talabani would not comment on the guilty verdict or death sentence for fear it could inflame tensions.
Many Sunnis dismiss the trial as political farce.
If the appeals court upholds the sentences, they must be ratified by the president and his two vice-presidents, one a Sunni Arab.
Talabani has opposed the death penalty in the past, but found a way around it by deputizing a vice-president to sign an execution order on his behalf - a substitute that has been legally accepted.
A nine-judge appeals panel has unlimited time to review the case. If the verdicts and sentences are upheld, the executions must be carried out within 30 days.
A court official told The Associated Press that the appeals process was likely to take three to four weeks once the formal paperwork was submitted. If the verdicts are upheld, those sentenced to death would be hanged despite Saddam's second, ongoing trial on charges of murdering thousands of Iraq's Kurdish minority.
U.S. President George W. Bush called the verdict "a milestone in the Iraqi people's efforts to replace the rule of a tyrant with the rule of law."
But symbolic of the split between the United States and many of its traditional allies over the Iraq war, many European country voiced opposition to the death sentences in the case, including Britain - America's closest ally.
Prime Minister Tony Blair said Monday he opposed the death penalty "whether it's Saddam or anyone else." But he said the trial "gives us a chance to see again what the past in Iraq was, the brutality, the tyranny, the hundreds of thousands of people he killed, the wars."
Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay called Saddam's trial "open" and "transparent," but said it would be pre-emptive to pass judgements or make public declarations until the appeal process was over. cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2006/11/06/2253548-ap.html
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Nov 6, 2006 14:30:54 GMT -5
Our prisons are full of unrepenting sociopaths who blame eveyone else for their mistakes. Bush hails Saddam verdict
GRAND ISLAND, Neb. (AP) - U.S. President George W. Bush celebrated Saddam Hussein's death sentence as a victory for "Iraq's young democracy" and U.S. security, highlighting Sunday's verdict in the last hours of an election campaign in which Republicans are suffering from public discontent with the Iraq war.
White House spokesman Tony Snow decried as "absolutely crazy" any notion that the end to Saddam's nine-month trial was timed to produce positive news on the divisive, unpopular war two days before Americans vote. The United States has always denied direct involvement in the trial, though suspicions persisted.
Snow didn't entirely set politics aside, asserting that U.S. voters "ought to be heartened" by the verdict and its broader implications about the progress the administration insists is evident in Iraq.
"This is getting the Iraqis to stand up on their own," Snow said. "You can't have civil society without rule of law."
Bush painted Saddam's conviction and sentence as vindication of the sacrifices made by American soldiers in Iraq. More than 2,800 members of the U.S. military have died since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003.
"They've sacrificed for the security of the United States," said the president, who spoke to reporters for two minutes in Texas before flying to campaign appearances on behalf of newly in-peril Republicans in Nebraska and Kansas. "Without their courage and skill, today's verdict would not have happened."
With the verdict a chance to recall Saddam's December 2003 capture by U.S. troops in a hole in the ground - still one of the high points of the war for Bush - he repeated these points later during campaign visits to two of America's reddest states.
"Today we witnessed a landmark event in the history of Iraq," Bush said in western Nebraska, where he was trying to boost the Republican party state Sen. Adrian Smith in a tightened race against Democrat Scott Kleeb. Delivered in solid Bush Country, in an arena awash in red clothing, the president's Iraq lines earned the most sustained cheering of his speech, as they did in Topeka, Kan.
"My decision to remove Saddam Hussein was the right decision and the world is better off for it," he said to raucous applause.
An Iraqi court convicted Saddam earlier Sunday and sentenced him to die by hanging for ordering the torture and murder of nearly 150 Shiites from the city of Dujail in 1982. Six subordinates were also found guilty of crimes against humanity, which came after what Saddam said was an assassination attempt against him.
Shiites rejoiced at the death sentence for the former dictator who terrorized their population. But Saddam's fellow Sunnis paraded through his hometown in protest. With sectarian violence already pushing Iraq to the brink of civil war, presidential counsellor Dan Bartlett said Bush is confident U.S. forces and Iraqi soldiers were prepared to contain any spike in bloodshed.
Democrats - hoping for large gains that could put them in control of the House and possibly the Senate - moved quickly to both applaud the sentence and repeat their campaign-trail argument that Bush's leadership on Iraq has been a failure.
"The scope of that failure is not lessened by the results of Saddam's trial," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., poised to become House speaker if Democrats wrest the majority from the Republicans.
A history of Election Day disappointments and a constantly shifting pre-election landscape appeared to have Democrats a bit jittery. New York Sen. Charles Schumer, in charge of Democratic campaign efforts in the Senate, said, "I don't think (Saddam's) conviction makes much of a difference in this election, even though it's a very good thing that happened."
Other Republicans backed Bush's contention of the verdict as evidence of success in Iraq. "The United States and the world are safer because Saddam Hussein sits on death row, not in a palace in Baghdad plotting to harm millions of innocent Americans and Iraqis," said House Majority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo.
But at least one Republican said the news must be viewed in the context of the difficult situation in Iraq.
"Saddam Hussein's trial is a step forward because it was a result of a legal system in operation, not a dictator in operation, so that's the good news," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said on CNN's "Late Edition." "But when you look at the institutions of government in Iraq, they're all under siege. ... We just need a strategy to provide better security to get this right."
Bush called the verdict "a milestone in the Iraqi people's efforts to replace the rule of a tyrant with the rule of law."
"Today, the victims of this regime have received a measure of the justice which many thought would never come," the president said.
He emphasized that Saddam was extended rights of due process and appeal "that he denied the Iraqi people."
"Iraq has a lot of work ahead as it builds its society that delivers equal justice and protects all its citizens," Bush said. "Yet history will record today's judgment as an important achievement on the path to a free and just and unified society." cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2006/11/05/2242633-ap.html
|
|
|
Post by duster on Nov 6, 2006 15:49:35 GMT -5
The execution of Saddam Hussein could provide the basis of an immediate exit strategy. It's never been more clear that Iraq will be divided among the Kurds, Sunni and Shi'ites, and the U.S. "coalition of the very reluctant" can do absolutely nothing about it. Political rhetoric about democracy aside, an exercise in realpolitik makes it obvious that there is no reason for them to stay any longer. Immediate withdrawal would also likely fulfill, right or wrong, another goal of Bush's foreign policy: de-stabilize Assad's Syria.
It's hard to say if there will be a clash of civilizations. I won't be that easily defined, imo. It is my understanding that moderate Arab states - with their predominantly Western educated intelligentsia and where the populace enjoys a comparatively good standard of living, have little in common with Iraq, Pakistan and Iran. The Palestinians being the exception perhaps. Already, the Saudis have been very busy building a West Bank style defense barrier to seal the border with Iraq and, along with the Gulf States, have been arming themselves to the teeth - no doubt in anticipation of this verdict and its consequences. An Iron Curtain revisited?
Interesting times, in the full Chinese context.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Nov 6, 2006 17:30:56 GMT -5
Thanks duster. Interesting perspectives. The execution of Saddam Hussein could provide the basis of an immediate exit strategy. It's never been more clear that Iraq will be divided among the Kurds, Sunni and Shi'ites, and the U.S. "coalition of the very reluctant" can do absolutely nothing about it. Political rhetoric about democracy aside, an exercise in realpolitik makes it obvious that there is no reason for them to stay any longer. Immediate withdrawal would also likely fulfill, right or wrong, another goal of Bush's foreign policy: de-stabilize Assad's Syria. I don't know if this would de-stabilize Syria or not. I honestly don't know what you mean, so I'll ask you, how? (not a loaded question, duster. Just trying to see the persepctive). Syria seems to have assumed the responsibility of heckling Israel either directly via political rhetoric or indirectly by funding and harbouring factions like Hezbollah. But, I think that has all of a sudden become a secondary task to monitoring their border with Iraq. There are thousands of Iraqis fleeing Iraq into not only Syria but other Arab states as well. As Gwynne Dyer points out, and you cite below, Saudi Arabia is erecting a 550-mile long fence to prevent Iraqi refugees from entering its country. I'm not sure as to how this will de-stabilize one country, but in the bigger picture I think it has destabilized the main players in the Arab League. If this was the intent then I'd say the tactic was brilliant ... however, I've reluctant using that word in the same sentence as Bush Jr. So, I'll stick to my belief that he botched the operation. Add Turkey to that list. I had a chance to go to the UAE on a possible teaching opportunity but never followed through with it. But, you're right, the more moderate Arab countries are less to become involved in an international conflict. Yet, there are more than enough fundemental Islamic countries that will not deviate from their agendas. As for a clash of civilizations, there are theorists who believe this single action was an initiative by Islamic extremists to further define the division between Islam and Christianity; the USA/Bin Laden scenario being just smoke. However, even if it wasn't the actual agenda, it has been a defining moment nonetheless. Indeed.
|
|
|
Post by duster on Nov 6, 2006 23:59:08 GMT -5
....I don't know if this would de-stabilize Syria or not. I honestly don't know what you mean, so I'll ask you, how? (not a loaded question, duster. Just trying to see the persepctive). Syria seems to have assumed the responsibility of heckling Israel either directly via political rhetoric or indirectly by funding and harbouring factions like Hezbollah..... Great post. You make valid points. I think the destabilization of the Arab League is an accidental result of Bush's policy in Iraq but, then again, so is the growing divide within NATO. You could say Bin Laden or Saddam were equally as brilliant as Bush. The last country to gain from this is Syria, imo. I think Assad very much wants the U.S. to stay in Iraq since, trade issues aside, he fears the conflict will spill over across the border and take advantage of his country's worsening economic and political situation. My reasoning is as follows: I think it's important to consider what Iraq can become should the U.S. withdraw. Perhaps you'll agree that the divisions between Sunnis and Shi'ites in Iraq are primarily political rather than ethnic or cultural, and reflect the competition of the two groups over the right to rule, as in Northern Ireland. Whereas the Sunni ruling elite have adopted a wider Arab nationalism as its main ideology, the Shi'ites have preferred Iraqi nationalism, which stresses the distinct values and heritage of Iraqi society. In the context of the existing conflict, the Sunni minority, which forms 17 percent of the population, view an intact Iraq as a matter of survival. For the Shi'ite majority, which constitutes 60 percent, the question is rather one of gains and losses. Should Iraq splinter after a U.S. withdrawal, Shi'ites in the south could lose Baghdad, despite the fact that Shi'ites constitute at least half the city's population. The Shi'ites could also lose the shrine cities of Kazimain and Samarra, and there is no question that there will be more blood shed over oil. The vacuum left by a U.S. withdrawal will almost certainly lead to open conflict as we saw in Lebanon during the 70s and 80s. It's going to be ugly....... We've seen recently in Lebanon that the Alawite Shi'ite minority holding power in Syria is slowly relinquishing its Ba'athist ideology and has aligned itself with Iran politically. This is likely to have caused some concern among the Sunni in Iraq and most, if not all, of the Gulf States - including the Saudis. The Syrian economy is largely dependent on oil exports and remittances from expatriates. It has or had considerable trade with Iraq. The country also has a substantial foreign debt, high unemployment, is excluded from many trade agreements due to U.S. or U.N. sanctions, and dedicates a substantial portion of GDP to the military. The oil is running out, however, and it is estimated that Syria will be a net importer of oil by the next decade. At present, important consumer goods and key industries such as agriculture are heavily subsidized. Inevitably, as revenues start declining, key subsidies will have to be reduced. We've seen this type of thing in Eastern Europe, for example. A decline in living standard is never popular and I suspect it will be even less so among among Syria's substantial Sunni majority. It could initiate a cycle in which economic decline means political instability or change which breeds insecurity which, in turn, reduces economic prosperity, which then leads to further instability. It's not a big reach to think that ideologically motivated Sunni extremists in Iraq will take advantage of this, particularly if Iran openly supports Iraq's Shi'ites in a conflict. A Coalition withdrawal would give them free rein... After a U.S. withdrawal then, Syria would have a shared border with two neighbouring unstable states (Lebanon and Iraq) each with substantial portions of their respective populations potentially hostile or ideologically opposed to Syrian policy, a NATO aligned and less than friendly Turkey (relations have never been good between both countries), a decidedly pro Western Jordan and, last but not least, Israel. Furthermore, Assad's meddling in Lebanon has successfully aroused suspicion- if not outright opposition - from some of the moderate members of the Arab League. He may have jeopardized any hope of financial assistance from the Gulf States and the Saudis who distrust an Iran that exports revolution and is seeking nuclear weapons, and there is the issue of an estimated 500,000 Palestinian refugees...
|
|
|
Post by Habs_fan_in_LA on Nov 7, 2006 1:37:51 GMT -5
Irai Shiites are the majority. They follow one successor of Mohammud. Most live in poverty in a devasteted country. Iraqi Sunnis are the minority. They follow the other sucessor of Mohammud. Most live in poverty in a devasteted country. Solution:
a) rebuild the country with oil wealth. b) fight against the infadel c) fight against each other d) spend money on bombs to destroy the 10% still standing e) strap a bomb around your children and set it off in a crowded place. f) all of the above
Memo to the rest of the world. Step back and let them kill eachother. The Kurds don't smell quite as bad as the others, but they are attempting to rebuild and seek peace.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Nov 7, 2006 10:46:54 GMT -5
Great post. You make valid points. I think the destabilization of the Arab League is an accidental result of Bush's policy in Iraq but, then again, so is the growing divide within NATO. You could say Bin Laden or Saddam were equally as brilliant as Bush. Thanks duster. I read your post earlier this morning but work got busy. Really good dialogue going on here. I'll respond when I have more time later tonight. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Nov 15, 2006 9:35:50 GMT -5
....I don't know if this would de-stabilize Syria or not. I honestly don't know what you mean, so I'll ask you, how? (not a loaded question, duster. Just trying to see the persepctive). Syria seems to have assumed the responsibility of heckling Israel either directly via political rhetoric or indirectly by funding and harbouring factions like Hezbollah..... Great post. You make valid points. I think the destabilization of the Arab League is an accidental result of Bush's policy in Iraq but, then again, so is the growing divide within NATO. You could say Bin Laden or Saddam were equally as brilliant as Bush. The last country to gain from this is Syria, imo. I think Assad very much wants the U.S. to stay in Iraq since, trade issues aside, he fears the conflict will spill over across the border and take advantage of his country's worsening economic and political situation. My reasoning is as follows: I think it's important to consider what Iraq can become should the U.S. withdraw. Perhaps you'll agree that the divisions between Sunnis and Shi'ites in Iraq are primarily political rather than ethnic or cultural, and reflect the competition of the two groups over the right to rule, as in Northern Ireland. Whereas the Sunni ruling elite have adopted a wider Arab nationalism as its main ideology, the Shi'ites have preferred Iraqi nationalism, which stresses the distinct values and heritage of Iraqi society. In the context of the existing conflict, the Sunni minority, which forms 17 percent of the population, view an intact Iraq as a matter of survival. For the Shi'ite majority, which constitutes 60 percent, the question is rather one of gains and losses. Should Iraq splinter after a U.S. withdrawal, Shi'ites in the south could lose Baghdad, despite the fact that Shi'ites constitute at least half the city's population. The Shi'ites could also lose the shrine cities of Kazimain and Samarra, and there is no question that there will be more blood shed over oil. The vacuum left by a U.S. withdrawal will almost certainly lead to open conflict as we saw in Lebanon during the 70s and 80s. It's going to be ugly....... We've seen recently in Lebanon that the Alawite Shi'ite minority holding power in Syria is slowly relinquishing its Ba'athist ideology and has aligned itself with Iran politically. This is likely to have caused some concern among the Sunni in Iraq and most, if not all, of the Gulf States - including the Saudis. The Syrian economy is largely dependent on oil exports and remittances from expatriates. It has or had considerable trade with Iraq. The country also has a substantial foreign debt, high unemployment, is excluded from many trade agreements due to U.S. or U.N. sanctions, and dedicates a substantial portion of GDP to the military. The oil is running out, however, and it is estimated that Syria will be a net importer of oil by the next decade. At present, important consumer goods and key industries such as agriculture are heavily subsidized. Inevitably, as revenues start declining, key subsidies will have to be reduced. We've seen this type of thing in Eastern Europe, for example. A decline in living standard is never popular and I suspect it will be even less so among among Syria's substantial Sunni majority. It could initiate a cycle in which economic decline means political instability or change which breeds insecurity which, in turn, reduces economic prosperity, which then leads to further instability. It's not a big reach to think that ideologically motivated Sunni extremists in Iraq will take advantage of this, particularly if Iran openly supports Iraq's Shi'ites in a conflict. A Coalition withdrawal would give them free rein... After a U.S. withdrawal then, Syria would have a shared border with two neighbouring unstable states (Lebanon and Iraq) each with substantial portions of their respective populations potentially hostile or ideologically opposed to Syrian policy, a NATO aligned and less than friendly Turkey (relations have never been good between both countries), a decidedly pro Western Jordan and, last but not least, Israel. Furthermore, Assad's meddling in Lebanon has successfully aroused suspicion- if not outright opposition - from some of the moderate members of the Arab League. He may have jeopardized any hope of financial assistance from the Gulf States and the Saudis who distrust an Iran that exports revolution and is seeking nuclear weapons, and there is the issue of an estimated 500,000 Palestinian refugees... Excellent synopsis, duster. Thanks. Cheers.
|
|