Saturday, December 30, 2006

Saddam Hussein's karmic retribution

When it comes to capital punishment, no matter which side of the issue one happens to favor, we all need to acknowledge that there are consequences for our actions, and that we have no control over how those 'consequences' will eventually manifest themselves in our lives. We do, however, have control over whether our actions are positive or negative and we'd do well to ensure that our conduct has no negative impact on others. There is a Power far greater than ourselves, that handles the checks and balances in our lives. Nothing we do goes unnoticed, both the good and the bad. It's a law of nature that every 'cause' has an 'effect'. Some would say, "What goes around, comes around". Hindus and Buddhists call it Karma. It's referenced in the Bible (Galatians VI) as: "Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap", better known as, "As you sow, so shall you reap." It's a universal, spiritual concept that is oft forgotten. Perhaps if more people used it as a daily litmus test for how to live their lives, there would be less savagery and inhumanity in this world. People who realize that they will be held accountable for their actions, in both the physical and spiritual realms, have a tendency to act accordingly.

Whether Saddam Hussein deserved to be hanged or rot in jail for the rest of his life, is something people will debate for years, but one thing we should all agree upon is that he did commit major atrocities and deserved some form of retribution.

Some fear his death will escalate the violence in Iraq, others that it will bring peace to that region. Only time will tell what effect his execution will have in that country. One thing we can count on, however, is that the U.S. will probably be blamed for his demise.


Rod said...

Some would say death is Saddam's ultimate punishment, but that's only the beginning. He will have many lifetimes where he will attract the results of his actions over and over again.

To put it another way, "No action ever goes unrewarded."

Incognito said...

I agree Rod, and that goes for good and bad.
Happy New Year!

Daniel said...

Saddam was an assassin. There are no doubts.
And is not Bush, also an assassin and a person guilty of acts of genocide?
Which will be his(her,your) punishment?
It seemed that the justice is not equal for all.

Incognito said...

Bush an assassin and guilty of genocide? Are you being funny? What genocide would you possibly be referring to? You can call Bush many things but no, Daniel, he is not an assassin guilty of genocide. Do I need to define genocide for you?
Unlike Saddam who massacred Kurds (men, women and children)and people who disagreed with him, Bush has done no such thing. If you want me to write a post describing the horrors that Saddam executed upon his people, I'd be very happy to.

Daniel said...

Bush is the Hitler of the XXIst century. He massacred to thousands of Afghan innocent and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, initiating two wars with lies.
And the weapon of massive destruction of Iraq?
And Bin Laden in Afghanistan?
Where there are Bin Laden and the weapon of massive destruction?
The war of Iraq was realized to appropriate of the oil of this country, and to favor to the corporations that direct the government.
What Hussein was an assassin? Without doubts, but it does not mean that Bush also it is. Bush is the " Butcher of Texas ".

Incognito said...

Oh boy. Okay Daniel, my next post will be dedicated to you, but it will probably take a few days because I am about to open a show and am in technical rehearsals so am very busy. So do come back.

But just as a matter of interest, are you Muslim?

Daniel said...

Not. I am not Moslem.
Simply I am a person who wishes the peace and the justice in the world, which also they would bring the peace to The United States.
For what United States cannot it be a country as any other one?
Why has it to affect in the politics of other countries in favor of the interests of the American corporations? And why if it does not achieve it, does it appeal to the extortion and to the violence?
Why the American governments do not act in favor of the Americans, and not in favor of the corporations that finance your electoral campaigns?
Would not there be necessary to read any more Petras, Chomsky?
Would not there be necessary to read Michael Moore?
Would not there be necessary to listen to Susan Sarandon?
They are only some inconvinient questions, only it.

MUD said...

One point I did laugh at was Michael Moore. I thought he was funny as long as he aimed his humor at Business leaders. To give him any credence as the voice for America is to give him and Rush Limbaugh a lot more credit than is due. I agree that this should be a time of peace and love. The problem is that there are a lot of people out there that aren't capable of loving without killing me because I am not Muslim. Those that think we had no provication to start this war don't understand the UN resolutions or the effect of 9/11. Daniel probably has not served his country and does not fully understand the price of peace. Whay would have happened if our parents had said screw the Government, Hitler ain't bothering me? If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read this in english, thank a soldier. MUDirtil

Daniel said...

Nobody wants to kill anybody for not being a Muslim. The motives of hatred towards The United States it is necessary to look for them in the decisions of the American governments, which generally have been characterized for appropriating of the resources and impoverishing to the countries of the third world.
And then, for using these resources in benefit of the
"Corporate America".
Until we do not understand this there will no be solution.
And in this aspect, republicans and democrats are very similiares. Only they differ in questions of style.

Incognito said...

Well, Daniel, before I have a chance to write my post dedicated to you, I want to address a few issues here.

First of all, Afghanistan has been invaded multiple times over the centuries. Muslims were not the orginal inhabitants of that country, by the way. It was conquered by Islamic forces between 637-709 CE and ultimately the Communist Soviet Union invaded in 1978.
In 2001 it was The Afghan Northern Alliance that provided the bulk of the fighting forces. The U.S. provided support along with NATO members from Britain, France, Canada, Italy, Netherlands, Germany, Portugal, Spain and Norway. Australia, New Zealand and Pakistan also helped. So it was not only Bush and the U.S. that participated in what you call the massacre. What would you call the initial Muslim conquerers or the Soviet Union invaders?

And Bush did not initiate the war with lies. All the other major world powers also believed there were WMDs and Saddam had years, prior to the invasion of Iraq, to ship them off to Syria, where they probably are at this moment. The other major powers just wanted to deal with Saddam through Diplomatic means, which obviously were not working, after so many U.N. resolutions that went un-enforced.
I'm not going to get into the "oil" issue here, you will have to wait for my post.

I am going to assume you are probably a communist or very leftist in your leanings, and if you want to talk about imperialism, the greatest imperalists have been the Muslims and Communists. I also have a post I am planning to write about that issue, as well.

What third world's have we impoverished by appropriating their resources? You need to be more specific, if you are going to make a blanket statement like that. The US donates the most in aid to 3rd world countries, not just in money and goods but in help. The sad fact is that they might hate us but they sure love our money.

Incognito said...

I totally agree MUD. And Daniel is not from this country, so he is just spouting the usual anti-US rhetoric that is prevalent in many South American countries. But that region is slowly turning leftist, so it's understandable. There are also Europeans like that and though they love to hate us, they certainly love our money.
And I don't think there is one person in this world that doesn't want love and peace, but as you say there's something called self-preservation.
And as for Hitler, we did say that for a while, until we finally committed. The UK was the only country willing, at first, to fight. Had we gone in earlier, perhaps there wouldn't have been as much carnage!

MUD said...

One day, the uS will look up over the steering wheels of our cars and realize we have traded all our manufacturing jobs to China. We will owe so much money for all the goods and oil we have imported that we will be the country in trouble. I hate that thought but fear it none the less. All the talk of third world countries in this day and age makes me shudder. Vietnam a few years ago was one and look at their ecconomy grow now. I have a dream that some day the Cubans will bury Castro and the rediculous idea of Communism and join the rest of the world. MUD

Incognito said...

I know, Mud, I have a Toyota!

As for Castro, his brother is next in line and, at one time, was more die-hard than he. he may have mellowed by now, like Ortega. We'll see how long that lasts, but there's always hope. As for communism, it's here to stay, it seems. Too many people who love the power and too many others who are duped into thinking that those in power will truly help them. Have a post I'm about to write about that.
Thanks for your comments.

Daniel said...

I never spoke about communism. You have the classic custom of the Americans: when someone criticizes them, or one is Moslem or one is communist.
I simply expressed that the government of the United States must behave towards the rest of the world in the same way as they do other countries.
For what United States it must think and meddle in Venezuela, North Korea, Iran, and in how much country follow policies opposite to the interests of the corporations?
With regard to Latin America, you know the Monroe Doctrine?
And with regard to what it did The United States in opposition to other countries:
In the 80, the CIA murdered Torrijos, president of Panama, and to Roldós, President of Ecuador.
Torrijos had negotiated with Carter the transfer of the Canal of Panama.
Roldós had applied policies in opposition to the multinationals of the oil.
The Governments of the United States supported all the military dictatorships of ultra right in Latin America, which they impoverished to his countries and were of benefit to the multinationals.
Is it possible to deny this?
This is not a communism, is simply true.
I am not in opposition to the people of the United States. Yes I am in opposition to his governments and his corporations.
And the people of The United States also is a victim of his corporations and of legal but illegitimate governments. Is it possible to be a president of The United States without multinationals that finance your campaigns?
Is it democratic it?
Sorry for my english.

Incognito said...

don't worry about your english, Daniel. Dialogue is good.
Won't be able to respond until tomorrow night. Sorry.

Incognito said...

Hola Daniel, Usted no tiene que mencionar el comunismo, porque el modo que usted habla me hace pensar que usted es(o al menos muy izquierdista). Tambien voy a asumir que usted vive en América del Sur o Central.
Y el hecho que la mayor parte de America Latina se mueve hacia el
socialismo (y tal vez finalment al comunismo), se hace bastante obvio.

Tambien, cuando hechas culpa a los Corporaciones para todos los problemas en el mundo, eso tambien es una indicacion. Y me hace pensar.

Y los izquierdistas que tratan de ser decididos en America Latina sobornan la gente con promesas falsas. Que hay la differencia?

Estoy de acuerdo con ud que algunos aspectos de America Corporativa no estan bien, pero esto es por lo general debido a la avaricia de unos individuos, no la entidad corporativa si mismo, o el gobierno.
Y usted no puede decirme que no hay corrupcion en otros paises. Hay corrupcion en el gobierno chino, en Rusia. Visite Cuba y la oligarquia son la clase privilegiada, mientras que las masas no tienen nada. Voy a escribir sobre esto pronto.

Y se, que los EU se han metido en la politica extranjera, apoyando los menores de 2 males, para proteger nuestros intereses en casa! Cuando el communismo era una gran problema (durante la Guerra Fria) apoyamos a los lideres que eran a favor de democracia porque nos sentimos amenazados. El communismo (como el Islam Radical) tiene mucho mas motivos imperialistas que alguna vez teniamos. Solo no quisimos un continente communista en nuestro traspatio. Y Chavez ha metido mucho mas en la Politica alla.
Y no hay ninguna prueba definitiva que Torrijos y Roldos fueron matados. Lo encuentro raro que ambos murieron en accidentes de avion durante el tiempo severo. Yo lo creeria (con mayor probabilidad) si los aviones se estrellaran.
Pero los EU no pueden ser culpados para la pobreza en ningun pais. De hecho, las corporaciones americans traen el dinero a los paises extranjeros.

Daniel de Witt said...

Gracias por hablar en español.
Tu acabas de dar en el punto exacto: "Solo no quisimos un continente communista en nuestro traspatio".
Más allá de la opinión que tengamos sobre el comunismo, ¿Por qué América Latina tiene que ser el traspatio? ¿Por qué Estados Unidos no mantiene relaciones de iguales con los países latinoamericanos?
¿Si por ejemplo, a Brasil, Argentina o Guatemala, no le gustara el sistema político de Estados Unidos, podría cambiarlo, alegando que Estados Unidos es su traspatio?
¿Suena ridículo, no?
Pues bien, igual de ridículo (y de injusto), nos parece ser el traspatio de Estados Unidos.
No queremos ser el traspatio de nadie. Eso es todo. Es mucho más importante que capitalismo o comunismo.

Más allá de las divergencias, celebro debatir con respeto. Me presento: Soy de Buenos Aires, Argentina y tengo 31 años. Casado, sin hijos. Tuve la oportunidad de viajar a casi 30 países en todo el mundo, y me interesa mucho la política internacional.

Un saludo.

Incognito said...

Mucho gusto en concerte, Daniel.

Yo tambien he vivido y he viajado por todo el mundo, entonces tambien estoy muy interesada en la politica internacional. He vivido (y viajado) por todas partes del America Latina (incluyendo Argentina) y soy muy familiar con aquellos paises.

Hablando de "traspatio", en primer lugar, "traspatio" (al menos en ingles) no tiene una connotacion negativa, esto simplemente significa tener alguien en la proximidad cercana.
Y claro, suena ridiculo, cuando lo presenta asi, pero considerando que el Comunismo, historicamente siempre ha tenido tendencias imperialistas, y nos sentimos amenazados en esa epoca. Mira la Rusia, asumio un gran parte de Europa y lo convertio en el Imperio sovietico. Y China con Tibet etc. Y mira la Cuba, Fidel comenzo como un Socialista, afirmo que el era un, y luego cuando el subio al poder el era de repente un comunista. Alguien que piensa que el Comunismo tiene algo positivo para ofrecer a su gente tiene que visitar ese pais. Yo he estado alli, y se como es.
La gente podria tener la asistencia medica y education gratis, pero ellos no tienen nada mas. Fidel y sus amigos, por supuesto, viven completamente bien.
La amenaza mas grande, ahora, es el Islam radical.