C'mon man, way WAAAAY off topic in here. Moved.

on the subject, i find it kind of sad really. i mean he's like a girl who's been kidnapped by someone, falls in love with him, robs people and kills them with him in true natural born killers style, but then gets stabbed in the back by him.

ahmad193:

he will be missed.......

he would've made the perfect manager.....

missed more than 3 chances?  execute him

i think he will not be missed specially by the people who was greatly affected by his managerial decisions. the only thing about saddam is he will be an additional name in the pages of the world history book. I just wish that other incoming leaders really understand and learn from this history.

Fmfranck:

on the subject, i find it kind of sad really. i mean he's like a girl who's been kidnapped by someone, falls in love with him, robs people and kills them with him in true natural born killers style, but then gets stabbed in the back by him.

frank, that is quiet an observation. but i cant see him in the way you have descibe it. in a way he is truly a man who got what he wanted and didnt think of the consequences of this action. the only thing that i see of him in your description is the robbing and killing people but not in the natural born killers style (that was totally irresponsible and stupid movie for me, cause i dont believe that there are people who wants to kill for the sake of killing). saddam is more like a rightous killer...he give good reasons to his actions which could be acceptable for the fanatics. and the last is getting stabbed in the back which really is all over the world history book and even in the bible. i dont condone death but then one life is not enough payment for the million of lives lost in the war.

fang:

Fmfranck:

on the subject, i find it kind of sad really. i mean he's like a girl who's been kidnapped by someone, falls in love with him, robs people and kills them with him in true natural born killers style, but then gets stabbed in the back by him.

frank, that is quiet an observation. but i cant see him in the way you have descibe it. in a way he is truly a man who got what he wanted and didnt think of the consequences of this action. the only thing that i see of him in your description is the robbing and killing people but not in the natural born killers style (that was totally irresponsible and stupid movie for me, cause i dont believe that there are people who wants to kill for the sake of killing). saddam is more like a rightous killer...he give good reasons to his actions which could be acceptable for the fanatics. and the last is getting stabbed in the back which really is all over the world history book and even in the bible. i dont condone death but then one life is not enough payment for the million of lives lost in the war.

what you must understand my friend is that there were two types of regimes in the world when saddam first came to prominence. us backed and ussr backed. the nations too weak to ally themselves to one or the other (or too misorganised) usually had guerilla financed by the CIA to take the governement via military coup. this happened in nicaragua, greece, etc,etc. all over the world. Saddam chose the us to ally himself with, and they gave him the financial backing to make himself a regional power so that the us would maintain and even gain influence in the region for their own good. When saddam tried to take some of that influence for his own (and his country's) wealth, the us saw it as a threat and demolished him.

it is more complicated than that. but in fact every state in the world wants power. wich makes every state enemy's in some sort of way. the only way to grow peacefully is to communicate with others and create alliances, economical treaties, regional and international confederations. some are legit and want the progression of world equity to some degree, but all want glory for their population first and foremost and when given the tools they will use it. some are less educated and naive, and fall within these easy ways. thus was irak tempted by the us. i think the us are as faltive as anyone in this circus, but every nation would act the same way given the same situation and the same ressources, that is the sadest part.

that is what i meant.

the mastermind killer are the us.

the naive influencial low self esteem poor girl is saddam ( sa dame in french ironically mean his woman lol)

and the victims are kurds, shi'ites, irak's neighbours and the evolution of world peace and equity. yet it has always been so. the only difference is that now people can see diplomacy for what it trully is.

hello francky....that was a very long lecture my friend.... but I  am going to give you a longer one he he he  I disagree with some of your statements although some I  would have to concede.....ok let me start....

what you must understand my friend is that there were two types of regimes in the world when saddam first came to prominence. us backed and ussr backed.  There are many types of regimes in the 18^th and 19^th century. Those which has some backing also has the English and French not to mention a few. But let us go back to the backing up of these 2 big names in that time. the nations too weak to ally themselves to one or the other (or too misorganised) I don’t believe they were weak, problematic maybe just like any other country in all the time frames of history. usually had guerilla financed by the CIA to take the governement via military coup. I agree with you in this one  this happened in nicaragua, greece, etc,etc. all over the world. Saddam chose the us to ally himself with, and they gave him the financial backing to make himself a regional power so that the us would maintain and even gain influence in the region for their own good. This one I will have to explain why I absolutely disagree with you. First and foremost, the allegiance of Ba’at to the US happened when he (Saddam) was a mere member of the said party. He was of course one of those who lend a hand of the coup. Then as  the story goes, they overthrow Abd al-Karim Qassim in 1963 and put to power Abdul Salam Arif. These was the real start to be on the spotlight (in my own opinion) of his political career. But let us go back to his allegiance between US and USSR. As far as I can remember, he never was an ally with the US. The had a mutual allegiance with the USSR but was stopped when the French came into the picture. When saddam tried to take some of that influence for his own (and his country's) wealth, the us saw it as a threat and demolished him. I don’t believe that Saddam took any influence from the US. In point of fact, he was one of those who mostly oppose them. That is why even though he was such a person to hate for his coldness to the humanity, he was also respected by those same people who hated him for his stance against the US. And the US did saw Saddam as a threat but not to the American but to the humanity and although the big war started in the Persian gulf, it was the UN that really brought Saddam down with the US as the front liner.

it is more complicated than that. You are totally right. It is very complicated and to simplify things will only aggravate complication.  but in fact every state in the world wants power.  This is true enough. which makes every state enemy's in some sort of way. Not really.  the only way to grow peacefully is to communicate with others and create alliances, economical treaties, regional and international confederations. some are legit and want the progression of world equity to some degree, This is why UN was created and it is definitely legit and wants equality in all aspect of life.  but all want glory for their population first and foremost This might be true for some and when given the tools they will use it. This is not true. For the simple reason that every country has its own given tools (am using your word) to make them glorious. Let me simply expand this picture. What do they/we really want? I would assume that all country wanted wealth before glory comes. And to acquire wealth one has to plan a strategy thus the creation of a government (those who opposes the structure and the policy of the government are called anti or whatever and also creates chaos or war) now you said that given a tool, they would use it, if so, why are there still some poor country which is very rich in the natural resources? They could have use it wisely to enrich themselves and when they arrive at the point of greatness in economy, they will have the glory. I know you would say that it is not what you mean but as you have said this is very complicated. And everything is interrelated.  some are less educated and naive, I don’t believe that the leaders chosen by most are less educated nor naïve. That would just be tantamount for a community of stupid people. I could just say that they made mistakes in their decisions as leaders  and fall within these easy ways. There is no such thing as easy way in politics and economcs. thus was irak tempted by the us.hmmmnnn i think the us are as faltive as anyone in this circus, true enough but every nation would act the same way given the same situation and the same ressources, I absolutely disagree with you on this. Not every nation has a Saddam in it. I would say that with a different situation and resources no matter what nation, when you have a Saddam in it, action will certainly happen that is the sadest part.

that is what i meant. the mastermind killer are the us. I wouldn’t say that US is the mastermind killer of all these happenings. It is more like two small boys who were given a power to make things happen. One of the boys did something that the other disagreed and the other reacted as a boy would do…..fight…and in that case they used their toy guns. I just wish simplifying this makes it more clear. or maybe a simplified expression would be "it takes two to tango".

the naive influencial low self esteem poor girl is saddam  this is not really close to home, as, Saddam has the opposite personality ( sa dame in french ironically mean his woman lol) in Arabic it means “one who confronts so I guess this is more like him since he is from iraq.  

and the victims are kurds, shi'ites, irak's neighbours and the evolution of world peace and equity. yet it has always been so. the only difference is that now people can see diplomacy for what it trully is. Amen to that.

interesting enough. i will not refutate every point youve maken for it would take to much time. let me just say two things:

1st i am not to familiar with saddam's political life or biography in general. but since the CIA as financed most of the worlds political coup d'etat since the second WW and especially since the end of the cold war i directly associated Saddam with them. I will not go through any Chomsky books to back up my claim or search on Wikipedia lol. You seem rather informed on the subject. Kudos to you.

2nd When it comes to political science i am inclined to describe things through causality of situations and actions.( i am a big fan of hume) I am a believer of the realist theory, and in general, this is what i described in the last post. The realist theory admits two facts. 1. every nation wants power and 2. The international community is chaotic. keep in mind i am talking about internation relations, not economy.

This is the easiest way to begin every reflections when youre talking about diplomacy, yet i am more of a constructivist, but this is for another day. The fact is im not a humanist (if its your case, fine) so i dont believe in the good intentions of the US, they do everything out of interest. The kurd massacre was worst than the invasion of Kuwait, why didnt they act then?

ps: interesting reply, but dont just say what you think, explain why you think it.

  expressing my thought is more difficult than surfing the net...ha ha ha but i will try for you.... and i will tell you my emotional thought or whatever it is you want me to tell you....

-   first and foremost am not very familiar with saddam in particular but iraq in general. somehow you have used a metaphor that really is unacceptable in my point of view thus the factual explainations. (that saddam is a raped girl and that US is a culprit among other things) i have to show you that it is mostly a mistake in the understanding of history that made men keep on doing the same mistake. Ok, granted that the CIA does things which is sometimes considered as not by the book. And what made Saddam diffirent from them? But maybe am being philosophical here. Both decide and do according to what they believe is right. Even the justification of war....although for me it is stupid but for both parties it is to arrive to a specific goal. wealth economically and glory politically. (by the way, i should know history or somebody in my alma mater is going to kill me he hehe he)

-   I am also a big fan of humanity. But as an economist I see things through its main root. Money and power. I don’t know if you would consider me as a realist but as I look at it, reality has to coincide with philosophy or else we will just be like rats that run inside a wheel of a specified way of thinking. As you have said the international community is chaotic....whether it is in economics or politics, it should be said that not knowing the main reality/problem will just be tantamount to heresy which ends up most of the time more chaos and grievances.

Maybe you are right that I am a humanist. I do believe in the good intention of everyone. The only thing I don’t believe is how they put these intentions into action. And yes I usually try to see the goodness of each entity. But may I remind you that I am also not that gullible as to close my eyes to the frailty of humanity. 

About the Kurd massacre....was it the same US president that stands by the side of Kuwait? whatever your answer is...there is only one explanation for me......it is an internal affair (in Iraq) and Kuwait is an external.....you can help a neighbor but I don’t think it is a good idea to butt-in in a family affair (internal) besides there is still some international law to uphold..... Is there? (Or isn’t there?)

fang:

-   first and foremost am not very familiar with saddam in particular but iraq in general. somehow you have used a metaphor that really is unacceptable in my point of view thus the factual explainations. (that saddam is a raped girl and that US is a culprit among other things)

I never said he was a raped girl, i simply said he was a girl... Seriously the metaphor is just to be saying that the one who has killed him in fact is George Bush, commander in chief of that american army. He is the one who has overthrown his regime and found him. The previouses presidents had been more clement to him, funding him is an example. Bush and his predecessors were the boyfriend in this couple, and the killing were actually the wrong doings they have both made (the us and irak) in their strides to enlarge their influence. if the american actions are less direct, they are more profound in the hurt they bring to populations. 

i have to show you that it is mostly a mistake in the understanding of history that made men keep on doing the same mistake. Ok, granted that the CIA does things which is sometimes considered as not by the book. And what made Saddam diffirent from them? But maybe am being philosophical here. Both decide and do according to what they believe is right. Even the justification of war....although for me it is stupid but for both parties it is to arrive to a specific goal. wealth economically and glory politically. (by the way, i should know history or somebody in my alma mater is going to kill me he hehe he)

that is also what i mean, and that is called realism, not the common known adjective but the complex international relations theory.

-   I am also a big fan of humanity. But as an economist I see things through its main root. Money and power.

Basically porperty and the natural right to protect it. In society we have a social contract that brings the monopole of this right to a governement. But there is no such thing on the international scene.

 I don’t know if you would consider me as a realist but as I look at it, reality has to coincide with philosophy or else we will just be like rats that run inside a wheel of a specified way of thinking.

Im not saying realism as in reality, i was saying realism as the theory in international relations.

As you have said the international community is chaotic....whether it is in economics or politics, it should be said that not knowing the main reality/problem will just be tantamount to heresy which ends up most of the time more chaos and grievances.

i dont think the international economic community is chaotic. if theres something that isnt chaotic its the market.  

Maybe you are right that I am a humanist. I do believe in the good intention of everyone. The only thing I don’t believe is how they put these intentions into action. And yes I usually try to see the goodness of each entity. But may I remind you that I am also not that gullible as to close my eyes to the frailty of humanity. 

About the Kurd massacre....was it the same US president that stands by the side of Kuwait? whatever your answer is...there is only one explanation for me......it is an internal affair (in Iraq) and Kuwait is an external.....you can help a neighbor but I don’t think it is a good idea to butt-in in a family affair (internal) besides there is still some international law to uphold..... Is there? (Or isn’t there?)

Yes in international law it is known that internal affairs must be taken care of by the governement if it still holds authority over its territory, BUT the UN has to act in case of human massacre. It is part of the reason why the security council was put in place. But we all know that without the approval of one of the 5 permanent members, the security council is frozen in action. The US president in this particular couldve taken action but didnt, but when his oil interests were in question (or its influence in the middle east) thats when they chose to act, not because of the value of human life, but that of oil.

Red= Comments.

Fmfranck:

fang:

I never said he was a raped girl, i simply said he was a girl... Seriously the metaphor is just to be saying that the one who has killed him in fact is George Bush, commander in chief of that american army. He is the one who has overthrown his regime and found him. The previouses presidents had been more clement to him, funding him is an example. Bush and his predecessors were the boyfriend in this couple, and the killing were actually the wrong doings they have both made (the us and irak) in their strides to enlarge their influence. if the american actions are less direct, they are more profound in the hurt they bring to populations. 

opss.... sorry about the raping.... just thinking  like a girl.... that if a girl is kidnapped most of the time (but not all the time) they are raped...anyway its besides the point...sorry about the misunderstanding...

franky i really dont know if i have to say yes to the statement that bush has killed saddam...metamorphically speaking....it is more like george bush, saddam himself and et.al.and as i have stated before, i dont believe that the other presidents gave him some funding (of course we are not talking about those previous iraq leaders)at any rate, iraq as i understand was already one of the financial giants through oil.

 have to show you that it is mostly a mistake in the understanding of history that made men keep on doing the same mistake. Ok, granted that the CIA does things which is sometimes considered as not by the book. And what made Saddam diffirent from them? But maybe am being philosophical here. Both decide and do according to what they believe is right. Even the justification of war....although for me it is stupid but for both parties it is to arrive to a specific goal. wealth economically and glory politically. (by the way, i should know history or somebody in my alma mater is going to kill me he hehe he) 

that is also what i mean, and that is called realism, not the common known adjective but the complex international relations theory.

actually that is called political realism....in all honesty we are talking/discussing a very broad subject...and it will take ages for the two of us to finish this topic. you see, i believe that in every corner of this discussion has an interrelated/sub-subject,intenational relation theory is one topic which merits a good discussion ... anyway...i am enjoying this so, ok..let us get on with this.

   I am also a big fan of humanity. But as an economist I see things through its main root. Money and power.

Basically porperty and the natural right to protect it. In society we have a social contract that brings the monopole of this right to a governement. But there is no such thing on the international scene.

hmmn... money is a social organization and civilizing force that provides a means and incentive for human beings to relate to one another economically by exchanging goods (basically property is one of the goods) and services for mutual benefits.Power gives everybody the incentive to protect. may i point out that even the smallest unit in the society (a family)has a government in it? when you go out of the house there is the community where you live and you also have some sort of government in it. when you go out of your community it has a government in it. and so on and so forth. so how come you say that this is monopolized by the government when in fact we are the embodiment of this government. and you say there is no such thing on the international scene. then how come there is the UN? and the other laws which is used as a guidelines for an international government? sorry maybe i am just misunderstanding your point. but since you're being specific, i will try to be that too...(specific in a broad way)...that is how i can explain things.....

  I don’t know if you would consider me as a realist but as I look at it, reality has to coincide with philosophy or else we will just be like rats that run inside a wheel of a specified way of thinking.

Im not saying realism as in reality, i was saying realism as the theory in international relations.

oh i see....

As you have said the international community is chaotic....whether it is in economics or politics, it should be said that not knowing the main reality/problem will just be tantamount to heresy which ends up most of the time more chaos and grievances.

i dont think the international economic community is chaotic. if theres something that isnt chaotic its the market.  

then you dont see it.....it is one chaotic place in a civilized manner. have you ever heard an overthrowing of small companies by bigger ones? or the buyout? or the fallout...or the other terms that i cant seem to recall this very moment? will then i tell you, that is a more dangerous war than most. in war we die and that's it. in time of depression people die slowly and painfully in hunger and illness.

About the Kurd massacre....was it the same US president that stands by the side of Kuwait? whatever your answer is...there is only one explanation for me......it is an internal affair (in Iraq) and Kuwait is an external.....you can help a neighbor but I don’t think it is a good idea to butt-in in a family affair (internal) besides there is still some international law to uphold..... Is there? (Or isn’t there?)

Yes in international law it is known that internal affairs must be taken care of by the governement if it still holds authority over its territory, BUT the UN has to act in case of human massacre. It is part of the reason why the security council was put in place. But we all know that without the approval of one of the 5 permanent members, the security council is frozen in action. The US president in this particular couldve taken action but didnt, but when his oil interests were in question (or its influence in the middle east) thats when they chose to act, not because of the value of human life, but that of oil.

Hmmnn....you may have a point there...but UN is not US. that is the difference.

 

ok, lets keep this going shall we...

this is slightly off topic so here goes:

What you said: hmmn... money is a social organization and civilizing force that provides a means and incentive for human beings to relate to one another economically by exchanging goods (basically property is one of the goods) and services for mutual benefits.Power gives everybody the incentive to protect.  " src="/en/emoticons/emotion-1.gif">   may i point out that even the smallest unit in the society (a family)has a government in it? when you go out of the house there is the community where you live and you also have some sort of government in it. when you go out of your community it has a government in it. and so on and so forth. so how come you say that this is monopolized by the government when in fact we are the embodiment of this government. and you say there is no such thing on the international scene. then how come there is the UN? and the other laws which is used as a guidelines for an international government? sorry maybe i am just misunderstanding your point. but since you being specific, i am going way too...very specific in a broad...that is how i can explain things.....

My response to it:

Again were losing ourselves on terms... I meant porperty as in possessions. Money came after the simple concept of possession. Prehistorical men had possessions but didnt use money.

Now before we lived in societies, we had a natural right to protect ourselves and our possessions. But since this right had its limits in effects and in subjective judgement, and since it put everyone in a constant state of war with one another, people chose to regroup in societies in wich they commonly gave up that right to an authority, what i called a governement, may it be a monarchy, parliament, or whatever. In society people also realized that it is better to specialise in production and exchange with a common invariable value system. But were losing the focus here i guess.

to answer to your question no the international seen doesnt have that higher authority that a that a human society has. the un is on a volontary basis, and isnt very effective or proactive on litigeous debates.the main problem is that public international law is very limited and rarely constraints states. the process of institutionalising of common laws, of traditions and whatnot is very long and tidious and its hard to call out an independant state. also its army cannot attack a state, it has to act in concordance with a conglomerate of armies. all in all, the problem is that all states remains independant, even when they are part of the UN, unlike citizens in a society. 

why? because every state looks to the ambitions and fears of its own citizens first and foremost and cannot give out that right and duty to a higher governing body. although strides have been made in this direction especially economically, and also the EU are a good example of the desire to come together but also of the pragmatical issues it creates. This is the paradox of the current mondialisation.

Again were losing ourselves on terms... francky even though there are some difference in economic and english terms, i wouldn't say that we're lost. I certainly know what is a property and its different types....but of course it would be tackled later We just have a bit of misunderstanding here. You see, i was just reiterating my point that the main root of all the problems in the world is the never ending quest of  small or big groups of people  to acquire wealth (or money which is the medium used to acquire wealth) and power. That is the main cause of the gulf war....why saddam wanted to have control over the oil. Cause when you have the money, power is right by its side. I meant property as in possessions. I know that you meant it that way, sorry i was using an economic term that property is one kind of good or commodity which of course can be possessed. .Money came after the simple concept of possession. And money was created because people were lazy ( he hehe i am just kidding). it was through the ingenuity of men that money were created. And money came Prehistorical men had possessions but didnt use money. Prehistoric men had possession and used this to possess other kinds of commodity (barter system).Can you imagine carrying a whole boor to the next nearest mountain people for an exchange of something? It really is painful (he he he...i guess i lived prehistorically...lol...we went hiking with big heavy bags). So this ancient people invented a way to exchange commodities, by the use of stone...(since it is prehistoric..i dont know if it was precious stones or speical stones). and then came gold and money and bank notes and the best is the credit card now that is a long lecture about money he he he.

Now before we lived in societies, we must have a definite definiton of what you mean by society, because there are many kinds and one is a tribal society which also existed in the prehistoric era.therefore i dont believe there is a "before we lived in a society".we had a natural right to protect ourselves and our possessions. I agree with you in this.But since this right had its limits in effects and in subjective judgement, can you please explain what you mean by this?and since it put everyone in a constant state of war with one another, people chose to regroup in societies in wich they commonly gave up that right to an authority, what i called a governement, may it be a monarchy, parliament, or whatever. In society people also realized that it is better to specialise in production and exchange with a common invariable value system (what is invariable of our value system today?) . But were losing the focus here i guess. (you are right, am losing focus here, that is why i will not clarify any of the above....not yet anyway)                  

to answer to your question no the international seen doesnt have that higher authority that a that a human society has. i dont understand what you mean here....how can you say that there is no higher authority in the society? do you mean that..... because the UN did not act when it should be acting (in the belief of some people)? In defense to the UN, there are so many thing to consider when they have to decide on something. the consequences, the pros and cons and the answer to the question of what is the less evil decisions.... the un is on a volontary basis, and isnt very effective or proactive on litigeous debates.  and i wouldnt say that it is not effective or proactive. let us just go back to saddam...isnt it not that he was stopped captured and punished? US is a big name but dont forget that UN was also in the picture. the main problem is that public international law is very limited and rarely constraints states. public international law or any law limits and constraints what i really mean is there are many international laws that was created for the greater good.  the process of institutionalising of common laws, of traditions and whatnot is very long and tidious and its hard to call out an independant state.hmnn? also its army cannot attack a state, it has to act in concordance with a conglomerate of armies.i am not sure about this all in all, the problem is that all states remains independant, even when they are part of the UN, would you rather be a one whole state and be dependent to but only one? i would certainly not like that unlike citizens in a society. 

why? because every state looks to the ambitions and fears of its own citizens first and foremost and cannot give out that right and duty to a higher governing body. i am sorry to say this, but i cannot accept the concept that every state fears its own citizens and that it cannot give out (surrender) its rights and duties to a higher governing body (although i understand why you have said this). saddam might have the tendency to this, a law to itself but i dont believe of your statement for the simple reason that we are somehow still not in world war 4 although strides have been made in this direction especially economically, and also the EU are a good example of the desire to come together but also of the pragmatical issues it creates. This is the paradox of the current mondialisation. a paradox indeed

ahmad193:

mondialsm outta ur ass

how come he gets to be a coach and not me!

thats what i call a paradox

thats what i call s useless post...