Are we becoming as bad as those we oppose?

Sertorius was the general in Spain.

The #1 thing the Baathists would be saying in a hundred years if Saddam didn't get a trial would be "he was never given a fair trial, he was just killed by the Americuns!!11!!1"
They're still going to say that of course, but the general support for such statements is going to be lower. There still are people who deny the Holocaust and who think that the top Nazis never did anything bad (even though none of the defendents at the Nuremberg trials denied that it happened) but there would have been more of them now if they had simply been lined up and shot.

As Kralizec notes, Quintus Sertorius was the rebel roman general in Spain -- and previous to that a winner of the Grass Crown fighting FOR Rome. If you read about this chap, the phrase "and they clanked as he walked" comes to mind.

The would-be demagogue killed in the Curia was cognominated Saturninus, I regret that I forget the gens, but a quick search will supply the full name. The Upper Classes of Rome were fairly unforgiving of demagogues and dictators --brothers Gracchi anyone -- up until the complete dissolution of the Republic in the break-up of the 2nd triumvirate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

As Kralizec notes, Quintus Sertorius was the rebel roman general in Spain -- and previous to that a winner of the Grass Crown fighting FOR Rome. If you read about this chap, the phrase "and they clanked as he walked" comes to mind.

The would-be demagogue killed in the Curia was cognominated Saturninus, I regret that I forget the gens, but a quick search will supply the full name. The Upper Classes of Rome were fairly unforgiving of demagogues and dictators --brothers Gracchi anyone -- up until the complete dissolution of the Republic in the break-up of the 2nd triumvirate.

---

Lucius Appuleius Saturninus. The chap asked to restore order was Gaius Marius, his former ally. The story can be found in Plutarch's Life of Gaius Marius.

Kralizec makes the point well. It's not only now we must think of when putting people on trial, it also determines largely how the events leading to the trial can be used by later generations. It prevents people from rewriting history.

Sadly I don't think this happened in the case against Saddam. Enough was proven to try the man, but it was absolutely not a conclusive case against his regime to prevent apologists from making him a martyr in the future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

Sadly I don't think this happened in the case against Saddam. Enough was proven to try the man, but it was absolutely not a conclusive case against his regime to prevent apologists from making him a martyr in the future.

---

True, they just picked the case that would cost the least time and paperwork, presumably to end it quickly. A missed chance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

Enough was proven to try the man, but it was absolutely not a conclusive case against his regime to prevent apologists from making him a martyr in the future.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

True, they just picked the case that would cost the least time and paperwork, presumably to end it quickly.

---

And many other atrocities that can be conveniently forgotten and left without investigation now that he's dead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spetulhu

And many other atrocities that can be conveniently forgotten and left without investigation now that he's dead.

---

I don't know. The Milosovic trial also showed us the downside of trying to incorporporate too much in a trial. It dragged on for years and only ended with Milosovics' untimely death.
A trail where each and every case against Saddam is brought forward could've lasted a lifetime. Instead they wanted him punished for his crimes and so opted to focus on a single a clear, easily proven case for which to trial him. If your main interest is to exact revenge then this is the logical path to follow. On the one hand, I can live with it.

On the other, Iraq has seen enough use of force, revenge, violence. Maybe a policy that emphasises peace would've been wiser. Oh well, the possibility for eventual 'truth and reconcilliation' hearings is still there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

I don't know. The Milosovic trial also showed us the downside of trying to incorporporate too much in a trial. It dragged on for years and only ended with Milosovics' untimely death.
A trail where each and every case against Saddam is brought forward could've lasted a lifetime. Instead they wanted him punished for his crimes and so opted to focus on a single a clear, easily proven case for which to trial him.

---

The problem in my opinion was mainly that it was such a multi-sided case which was almost always presented as the case against Milosevic; which is clearly impossible, since it was a war in which he was far from the only perpetrator. He was tried for crimes against other nations using laws clear to no-one. The Milosevic trial fell flat on its face in providing justice, that can't be denied. In the end, it lasted too long, Milosevic died, and his accountability and the need therefor will fade away. A disservice to his victims, but less so than to those of war criminals never tried.

In the trial of Saddam, the case can be made for crimes he committed against his own people, not just this one isolated case, which would have been a simpler matter (relatively speaking!) than a trial over a war against another nation. Iran-Iraq is a different matter, and again complicated by third-party interests.

The two approaches were different, but both ultimately flawed. The approach used against Saddam has removed trust in the Iraqi government, the approach used against Milosevic has removed trust in the effectiveness of international courts. In my opinion the Hague tribunal is the better approach, but must be performed more effectively: against Milosevic it did not reach a conclusion but could have provided accountability and justice, but the conviction of Saddam reached a conclusion lacking in both.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

If your main interest is to exact revenge then this is the logical path to follow.

---

And that's the problem: revenge is the exact impression formed by such an approach, and the exact impression Iraqi government could really have done without if it wanted some legitimacy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

On the other, Iraq has seen enough use of force, revenge, violence. Maybe a policy that emphasises peace would've been wiser. Oh well, the possibility for eventual 'truth and reconcilliation' hearings is still there.

---

I agree with that hope, but I doubt it. The view of 'now he's dead, no point in investigating further' will dominate. A proper trial would have allowed people to move on knowing that justice had been done, rather than wondering whether that was the case or if it was all about revenge.

Or indeed merely wondering whether this was just another killing in the cause of sectarian politics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spetulhu

And many other atrocities that can be conveniently forgotten and left without investigation now that he's dead.

---

Trials are still continuing even after his death. He's not the only defendant, there are many other Saddam flunkies that perpetrated other heinous acts.

After WW2 the allies cheerfully employed many wanted for war crimes. So as one arm officially tried to get them, another got them out of the country to work for the government.

The show trials after WW2 suspects were tortured into confessing [almost exclusively by the USSR], the Japanese royal family was shielded from all blame, even at the cost of trying and hanging others that weren't responsible and convicting the head of the Japanese Imperial Navy out of little more than spite at fighting so well in the early war.

So to ask whether we are becoming as bad seems to be at least 60 years out of date. Possibly we are now more aware of the deals than we were in the past and so do not so easily swallow the official line that we are fed concerning events.

~:smoking:

On one hand, trials (and executions) for the leaders of a losing party in a war may seem inappropriate and vindictive. Some of those trials were, as noted above, little more than a "drumhead" ceremony to rubber stamp and extent choice. However:

1. Some of the trials did bring criminal/evil leaders to justice for crimes than all reasonable people would conclude to be beyond the scope and necessities of war. We may be annoyed that many who should ALSO have stood trial did not, but many (most) of those who did were not facing frivolous charges.

2. It is markedly less vindictive than the old-style/traditional approach: kill all the males over 14, rape any and all females, pillage all things of value, sell the survivors into slavery.

Have we reached the "acme" of appropriate behavior in the wake of a conflict -- certainly not. But thankfully we don't wallow in the level of violence some of our ancestors accepted as normal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

On one hand, trials (and executions) for the leaders of a losing party in a war may seem inappropriate and vindictive. Some of those trials were, as noted above, little more than a "drumhead" ceremony to rubber stamp and extent choice. However:

1. Some of the trials did bring criminal/evil leaders to justice for crimes than all reasonable people would conclude to be beyond the scope and necessities of war. We may be annoyed that many who should ALSO have stood trial did not, but many (most) of those who did were not facing frivolous charges.

2. It is markedly less vindictive than the old-style/traditional approach: kill all the males over 14, rape any and all females, pillage all things of value, sell the survivors into slavery.

Have we reached the "acme" of appropriate behavior in the wake of a conflict -- certainly not. But thankfully we don't wallow in the level of violence some of our ancestors accepted as normal.

---

But that did work: the area is pacified, the peoples are no your peoples and by destroying everything that was there ensures that no lasting record of what before will allow either the memory of what happened, or a nucleus of information to allow rebellion to foment.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Yes fighting for a Nazi dictatorship that murdered millions is really something to gloat about:dizzy2:

---

His grandfather did his duty for his country, that's something to be proud of. Does your arguement extend to British (and therefore probably Irish) troops currently in Iraq? Where do you draw the line?

WWII was, and is, a massive PR effort. According to history every German grew horns in 1932 which dissapeared in a puff of smoke in 1945. Pull the other one, Germany prosected to blisteringly brilliant wars against vastly suppiour odds, equipment and supplies. They were fought to a standstill the first time and the second time they very nearly won, had it not been for Hitler's micromanagement and stupid mistakes we would all be speaking German.

The British didn't try to assassinate him because they thought someone competant might have taken over and had we lost we would all be hearing a lot more about SAS death squads and a lot less about the night of the long knives.

To answer the original question, I don't think we are as bad as we oppose because while we might be plenty nasty enough to our enemies we're a lot nicer to our friends and kin.

Even if Hitler had beaten the USSR, we'd not be speaking German. Taking over the UK would be something that was not only extremely tough, but he viewed the UK as "Anglo Saxon" i.e. a scion of the Aryan race. If the USSR lost then Britain would have probably come to terms.

Many of the greater atrocities of the Nazis were due to the war itself. Initially Jews were deported. Difficult in the middle of a blockade - not that it justifies the action, but it obviously did to some. There was mass starvation in the East. Stalin burnt the crops, so where does the food come from?

To those that were aware of realities of Germany prior to Hitler, for most things got better. To those that were younger, they were used to nothing else. I doubt if they could view the bombers flattening their country as potential liberators for events that they in the main were unaware of.

After WW2 everyone wanted to blame everything on the Nazis. They were everywhere, they watched everyone - especially the SS and the SD. As the SS and SD were illegal organisations, then everyone else can be exonerated if they are blamed for everything.

We were allies of the USSR which in total numbers murdered more than the Nazis. What does that make us?

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

His grandfather did his duty for his country, that's something to be proud of.

---

off topic , but no , not at all .

Pride is often a very silly thing , nationalistic pride even more so .
Now since the pride from that post is directed towards the fight against the bolshevic menace then unless he delayed doing his "duty" through Czeckoslovakia , Poland , Norway , Holland , Belgium , Denmark , France Yugoslavia , Greece .....and signed up only for the invasion of Soviet Russia , plus the parts of Poland they had divied up with their bolshevic allies then that duty is of the testicular variety .
Further more since the regime he fought for always used a word to precede that bolshevic menace then I can see no possible way how anyone could gloat .
The phrase used BTW was Jewish-bolshevic menace .

Pleas keep this thread on topic - starting a discussion about the WWII activities of other patron's family members is neither relevant to the original topic nor is it particularly polite.

Thanks

Ser Clegane

“We were allies of the USSR which in total numbers murdered more than the Nazis” Compare what is comparable: Nazi 4 years of extermination, Germany, 10 years in power. Communist around 70 years and 1/3 of the word… Of course it kill more people, even by natural death…:laugh4:

Here

Here

A nice article that breaks down deaths by era. Now, WW2 for example comes in at 11 million.

Or you can try a search of your own...

~:smoking:

I'm surprised that our dear Cleggy hasn't carved off the WW2-related posts here and simply dumped them on Kraxis' lap.:whip: After all, he has it too darned easy in the Monastery anyway!:yes:




:beam: