»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
Saddam, Gerry, and Dick
| The Alley |
|
Saddam, Gerry, and Dick |
|
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia 
|
I don't think your satire is bad Mike.. just that I think a far more interesting discussion would be the ironic contrast between the deaths of Ford and Saddam. On the one hand there is the noble statesman, drafted, for what could be argued, the worst job in American history. He served with honor, carried the respect of his peers -- both political opposition and allies alike, and remained liked even by a country that didn't elect him. He lived out his years with dignity as an elder statesman and died the esteemed healer. We know what Saddam was, and, interestingly Europeans, who strongly oppose the death penalty, strongly favored his walk to the gallows. Some call it justice, some call it victor's vengeance. The extra dimension that enters here is the Ford pardon of Nixon; now seen by all political stripes as a good thing that healed the country, saved us from a long quagmire of hearings and trials and what would have ultimately ended with a former President facing a sentence, but would have left the country bitterly divided. (this, I admit, I've never really understood because the Republicans have always made a loud declaration of being the law and order party -- but I'll bow to the sages we call pundits). Then, on the other hand -- in the instance where justice isn't short circuited for Saddam and the people of Iraq -- we know that justice has come at a steep price and even a fallen dictator facing death in a cold prison cell to the taunts and jeers of his captors brings no peace to a torn country. |
||
| © Copyright 2006 Local Rebel - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Actually, reb, just putting Hussein, Ford and Nixon together in the title was enough to kill any interest in reading the thread but, being the curious cat-lover I am, I had to see where you could possibly be going. There is no extra dimension. To somehow equate or connect in any way a dictator who butchered hundreds of thousands of men, women and children over his reign with the actions of a former President who pardoned another for political election wrongdoing is so ludicrous it is sad. I had to smile upon hearing the news talking-heads referring to Ford's pardoning of Nixon, which was before Hussein's execution. I didn't hear one of them make any comparison or refer in any way to Clinton's laundry list of pardons he handed out like candy to his friends immediately before leaving office.....but, then, that's not surprising, is it? If there is some kind of valid point you are trying to make, why not do it without the connection of a murderous madman to a former President of the United States who hurt no one or the connection of the murders of innocents to a pardon? I realize it is a common Democrat practice (ever hear of Thomas Jefferson and his slaves?  ) but it's way out of line and disrespectful of a decent man. |
||
|
Huan Yi Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688Waukegan |
. And Roosevelt, he should have been shot for he got into a war that cost 350,000 American lives. What was Europe and Asia to us? . |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: I'm not talking about connections Mike. I'm talking about contrast. Did I say something bad about Ford? They just happen to have died the same week -- which is why we can see the contrast. But, the other contrast that is clearly there - is we all agree that pardoning Nixon healed this country. Justice, for Saddam, however -- has no cure for Iraq. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
a far more interesting discussion would be the ironic contrast between the deaths of Ford and Saddam. What i meant was that I see no contrast between their deaths, with the exception that one was hanged and one died of natural causes. Did Ford's pardoning of Nixon "heal" the country? I honestly can't say, having been out of the country during the time of Watergate and also the pardoning of Nixon. I would guess that "healing" would be a little strong, bringing forth the image of a wounded animal being saved by a good veterinarian. What it did was put the issue to bed, out of the way of those who would use it for personal and political attacks for years to come....in other words, the Democrats. As Ford stated in the pardon.. I have been advised, and I am compelled to conclude that many months and perhaps more years will have to pass before Richard Nixon could obtain a fair trial by jury in any jurisdiction of the United States under governing decisions of the Supreme Court. The facts, as I see them, are that a former President of the United States, instead of enjoying equal treatment with any other citizen accused of violating the law, would be cruelly and excessively penalized either in preserving the presumption of his innocence or in obtaining a speedy determination of his guilt in order to repay a legal debt to society. The United States has been through a Civil War, two World Wars, a great depression, riots and a host of natural disasters and has made it through them all. I doubt it would need "healing" to get through a lying President. If so, we would have needed a lot of healing after Willie boy. As far as Hussein is concerned, I doubt that his death will have much to do with the future of Iraq, either....nor was it intended to be. It was pure punishment for his crimes. You see, the Iraqis aren't as sophisticated as we are. We sit down and draw out scenarios...what will happen if Hussein is hanged? Will it be good for the country? Bad? Will he turn into a martyr? What will the world think? The Iraqis see it a little simpler....Hussein murdered millions. Hussein dies. We could learn from that..... |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: I'm not following you here Mike -- by learning from the Iraqi's -- you're saying it was a mistake to pardon Nixon. Anyway -- does everything have to have a partisan tint to it? Gotta run.. Happy New Year Mike -- have the best year ever! |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
(this, I admit, I've never really understood because the Republicans have always made a loud declaration of being the law and order party -- but I'll bow to the sages we call pundits). Anyway -- does everything have to have a partisan tint to it? Yep, guess so. Same to ya, reb. I wish you a very healthy and fulfilling new year!  |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Thanks Mike.. quote: This would seem to indicate that you, a Republican, are for law and order. And unless merely stating that Republican's are the law and order party is somehow a partisan statement, that statement isn't partisan. quote: This tells me that you don't think that prosecuting and convicting Nixon would have been a divisive issue to the Democrats. That's half of the equation. And, if the Republican's prefer this kind of swift justice; quote: Then I reiterate my parenthetic statement -- I don't understand then how allowing the ordinary wheels of justice to turn would have left the country bitterly divided. So then I read this statement; quote: In conjunction with Ford's comments in the pardon, and again this statement quote: and it seems that you're criticizing? yourself? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
LOL! Well, I've read that last comment of yours three times and I'm still confused....maybe it's not meant to be read right after New Year's Eve? And unless merely stating that Republican's are the law and order party is somehow a partisan statement, that statement isn't partisan. Now, now, reb, don't be so modest. You know certainly well that you made that statement with a little bit of dig instilled and now you want to say "I merely said..." Okeedokee, have it your way then. This tells me that you don't think that prosecuting and convicting Nixon would have been a divisive issue to the Democrats Not sure what that means, either, but, as I mentioned, I was not in the country during Watergate time and actually had little information about it since (although Americans may find it hard to believe) it did not get a lot of play in foreign newspapers. All it seemed to me was Nixon getting caught trying to spy on the Democrats to gain an advantage in the elections. Sleazy, yes, but earthshaking? Hardly. Sorta ranks with weiner munching in the Oval Office. The problem (with both) seemed to be the lying about it afterwards. I have no idea if prosecuting and convicting Nixon would have been a divisive issue to the Democrats or not. This would seem to indicate that you, a Republican, are for law and order. Yes, I am for law and order and I would be even if I were not a Republican. I have no doubt many ordinary Democrats are for law and order, also. So....? I have no opinion on the pardoning of Nixon by Ford. Ford, in the pardon, referred to the divisiveness in the country a trial would cause. Those are his words, not mine. I simply quoted them and I am not qualified or informed enough to have a personal opinion. Quite frankly, I don't understand why a Democrat would even bring up the pardon of Nixon or refusal to let the wheels of justice turn with the Clinton legacy on their backs. Were you really that concerned about Clinton lying to a grand jury or being convicted of a felony while in office? I didn't see it anywhere. What about those pardons Clinton handed out that I mentioned in this thread? I see no complaints there about wheels of justice not having the chance to turn. Ortdinary wheels of justice? Ok, then compare the two. Hussein was given a trial, had appeals, was found guilty and hanged all within a short period of time. That's their way. Ford stated that the trial of Nixon would have gone on for years, resplendant with as much publicity, bickering, finger-pointing and name-calling that politicians could manufacture. From what I know about our country, I doubt that assessment is very far off the mark. If it had been done the Iraqi way...a trial and sentencing, all within a reasonable time then you can say there would be a good comparison between the two and I would agree with you. We don't have "ordinary wheels of justice" in this country where politicians are concerned. At any rate, as I said in my forst comment on this thread, the comparison between the two is ridiculous, in my opinion. You have a man who tortured, murdered and terrorized millions of citizens ove many years and you are comparing the trial and punishment of this madman to Ford giving Nixon a pardon. You are saying, "Well, if the normal wheels of justice work for one, why not the other, in some pretence that the two have some type of similarity. They don't. You may as well ask me how it feels to be a mass-murderer since that's what I do for a living....actually I do kill living, breathing creatures so I guess that could put me on similar footing with Hussein.....killing living things is killing living things, right? It's as silly as the comparison displayed in this thread. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
How many Iraqis would mind swapping systems? Doesn't this no nonsense approach reinforce, if not actually support, at least a kind of complacence to Hussein's brutality? [This message has been edited by Brad (01-01-2007 11:20 PM).] |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: The only way that this can possibly sting is if it somehow reveals hypocrisy. If there is no hypocrisy then there is no partisan statement. It's merely a fact. quote: Well let's look at the laundry list of crimes committed by Mr. Nixon; burglary bribery extortion wiretapping (phone tapping) conspiracy obstruction of justice destruction of evidence tax fraud illegal use of the Central Intelligence Agency illegal use of the Federal Bureau of Investigation illegal campaign contributions use of public (taxpayers') money for private purposes If it makes you somehow feel better to keep comparing Clinton to Nixon (this is my kids' favorite tactic of course "he did it too!") go right ahead -- but, only Nixon is on trial here right now - each man stands accused separately. Now, we know Mr. Nixon was guilty, because he accepted the pardon. The Supreme Court says that you can't be pardoned unless you're guilty. quote: How many times are you going to pull this Mike? a. I'm not a democrat. b. There was no PIP c. What about them? Want to complain about them -- start a thread -- research it, give us some talking points. Who knows? I might agree with you. quote: So, then you agree that Ford's actions healed the country. We have separation of powers in this country -- I know you don't believe in the Constitution (remind me to ask you someday why you love America?) which makes Congress the SOLE body that can impeach and the Executive the sole pardoning authority. Under the Constitution the actions of Congress and the Executive were completely within the 'ordinary'. But, compared to your Fry-em-Mike justice system -- justice wasn't served. quote: I'm contrasting them... not comparing them -- I'm looking at them to see how they are different -- not the same. quote: That's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that it can very easily be argued -- even to the Europeans who disfavor the death penalty -- that justice is served with Saddam at the end of a rope. On the other hand -- Nixon abused his power in a manner that threatened our very democracy and justice was short-circuited by a pardon. It is ironically the short-circuited justice that ultimately protected our Union -- yet -- justice being served for Saddam has exacted a terrible price for the Iraqi's -- and still brings no peace. That's irony Mike. . |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
So, then you agree that Ford's actions healed the country I said no such thing. What I said was that I was not in the country and do not have enough information to be able to determine anything of the sort. I repeat it, if you like as I mentioned, I was not in the country during Watergate time and actually had little information about it since (although Americans may find it hard to believe) it did not get a lot of play in foreign newspapers. I have no idea if Ford's actions healed the country or not. I only know that he believed so. Nixon abused his power in a manner that threatened our very democracy and justice was short-circuited by a pardon. Could there be a little melodrama mixed in there, Reb? Nixon's actions threatened our very democracy? Not sure even Chicken Little would buy that one. The country's democracy would have survived Nixon in either case. It is ironically the short-circuited justice that ultimately protected our Union ...It didn't "protect" the Union. It simply eliminated the years of political bickering and posturing that would have resulted from allowing it to continue. As I say, the Union would do very well with or without it. justice being served for Saddam has exacted a terrible price for the Iraqi's In what way? I don't see it. The suicide bombings and terrorist activities haven't gotten any stronger than they were before. What terrible price has it exacted? and still brings no peace. It's intention was not to bring peace. It was a sentence carried out on a mass-murderer. I'm contrasting them... not comparing them -- I'm looking at them to see how they are different -- not the same. Then what are you trying to accomplish? Simply showing two things are different is fairly pointless. We can say that about a banana and a bowling ball. You need to have something you can compare each to in order to make any sense of showing their differences. It appears that you are saying that side-stepping justice "saved" one country and serving justice has helped destroy another, which would be the irony you refer to. I would be able to understand the irony of that but you would have to be able to show me how the execution of Hussein has helped destroy Iraq because I don't see it at all. Unless you can make a case for such a broad statement, your comparison - or contrast - has little meaning. You don't even have a common denominator, with an American president doing one of the actions and an Iraqi government doing the other. What you DO have is an opportunity to bring up the pardoning of Nixon by Ford as an "extra dimension" but, since you are doing it on a purely non-partisan basis, that makes it ok |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: Bingo. It's no appearance. It's an actuality. quote: How did the capture, trial, and execution of Saddam Hussein come to be Mike? One could equally say it came at a huge cost to US. quote: The common denominator is timing Mike. The contrast is visible because of side by side images and headlines. The other common denominator between Nixon and Saddam is they were both (a.) heads of state, (b.) criminals. quote: You can't reconcile these opinions with this claim Mike; quote: If you can't know one, you can't know the other. quote: I've been trying to figure out why you're being so defensive about this thread -- and the only thing that I can come up with is... nah... I don't want to make a partisan statement on this thread. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
justice being served for Saddam has exacted a terrible price for the Iraqi's ---LR What terrible price has it exacted? --'DEER How did the capture, trial, and execution of Saddam Hussein come to be Mike? One could equally say it came at a huge cost to US.---LR I see. You are retreating from the Hussein execution - which has exacted no "terrible price" on the Iraqis - to the actual invasion of Iraq to validate your point. In doing so, however, you lose the original idea, which is comparing the two thoughts (sentencing/pardoning). If you simply want to say that invading another country exacts a terrible price, you'll get no argument from anyone. We agree! |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
This is justice: quote: --Christopher Hitchens http://www.slate.com/id/2156776 I'll hold on what Hitch says about Ford and I know, Mike, you'll probably see this as support for Hussein, but justice is justice, not just because it makes you feel better (And I doubt if it does even that.). In America, we talk about partisanship. In Iraq, religious sects and tribes. To pretend that this was not political is simple ignorance. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Ah, yes, a reference from the ever-present SLATE....and, of course, Hitchens, author of such non-partisan editorials like.... Our Short National Nightmare How President Ford managed to go soft on Iraqi Baathists, Indonesian fascists, Soviet Communists, and the shah … in just two years. Christopher Hitchens Thank you, Brad, for such a balanced report. As far as how the appeals were handled, the timing of the execution, the politics involved, etc....they were IRAQI decisions. It's always easy to condemn another country's actions in their own internal affairs. They are the ones who will live there long after we are gone. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
It's always easy to applaud another country's actions in their own internal affairs. They are the ones who will live there long after we are gone. Do you agree of disagree that the manner of execution was political? But honestly since Hussein's butchery was an internal matter, what right did/do you have to condemn that? You think we can learn something from them, I think they still have a lot to learn from us. If you wanna leave it at that, okay. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Do you agree of disagree that the manner of execution was political? I would surmise that the date selected for the execution could very well have been political. What would be so earthshaking about that? Iraq has had tribal differences and warfare for its entire history. You think that is going to change miraculously just because the US says "You're a democracy now"? But honestly since Hussein's butchery was an internal matter, what right did/do you have to condemn that? Surely you can't mean that, Brad. There are such things listed as "crimes against humanity" such as genocide, mass murder and ethnic cleansing. Would you be stating that no one should have had the right to condemn Hitler, Mussolini or Hussein....or that the Jews who went into the gas chambers in Germany were simply part of an "internal matter"? You think we can learn something from them, I think they still have a lot to learn from us. Of course they do. This is all new to them. It's not going to happen overnight and they will need a lot of advice and help along the way. Hopefully it won't take them as long as it took us. Don't ever think, though, that we have nothing to learn from other cultures because we do. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Mike, Is that you? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: Always good to agree. But, I have to disagree that the pursuit and capture of Saddam are seperate from his conviction and execution. No matter what pretense we used to invade the goal was the same... WMD's -- goal=regime change (aka get Saddam) spread democracy -- goal=regime change (aka get Saddam) stop a madman -- you get the picture. but if you guys keep agreeing with me its going to completely throw me off focus  |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Balladeer : "As far as how the appeals were handled, the timing of the execution, the politics involved, etc....they were IRAQI decisions. It's always easy to condemn another country's actions in their own internal affairs. They are the ones who will live there long after we are gone." Brad : "But honestly since Hussein's butchery was an internal matter, what right did/do you have to condemn that?" Balladeer : "Surely you can't mean that, Brad." I think you might well have missed Brad's point, Mike? Your views don't always seem to exhibit a lot of consistency. Oh, and Reb? You're wrong. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Thanks Ron. I needed that.  |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Aha, I see. I took Hussein's butchery to mean the acts Hussein committed on others. Was Brad referring to Hussein's execution then? I wouldn't have thought that since I've never heard of a hanging, mandated by court order, referred to as butchery...also I have not stated anywhere that I condemn the execution in any way. When I said it's always easy to condemn another's actions I was referring to Brad/Hitchen's condemnation, not mine. I haven't condemned the court's action anywhere..I've supported it. Ergo, the confusion... Ron, you maybe right but I am always consistent in my inconsistencies. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
