The coalition held Saddam until his execution. He was then turned over to the leadership of the ‘Iraqi People’, who happened to be masked. They broke his neck and danced and sang Shia songs. The body was taken away by the coalition for safe disposal. Celebratory gunfire.

Posted by: pez at December 30, 2006 8:28 AM

"Palestine is Arab."

Not "Palestinian" but "Arab."

The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism."

[Zuheir Mohsen, head of As Saiqa, one of the "Palestinian" terrorist groups, in a 1977 interview in the Dutch newspaper "Trouw"]

"Palestine does not interest us. It is a drop in the Arab sea from the Atlantic to the Gulf, and beyond."

[Yassir Arafat, 1972]

Posted by: Hugh at December 30, 2006 8:34 AM

Do not think Iraq will be calm now...read the words of Mohammad...Iran's leaders do!

Posted by: storagemanager at December 30, 2006 8:36 AM

Now Arab secularism is gone forever, only God knows what is waiting for us with all those pure insane sectarian groups. With their insanity and blood thirst limitless, the middle east will in time fall into total anarchy.

Not that such a situation is very different than, say, 30 years ago, but this time western soldiers are caught in the middle and muslim population is booming in the West. The end of dictatorship in the middle east may well mark the end of "world peace".

Posted by: DrWolffenstein at December 30, 2006 8:56 AM

"Like Arafat, Nasser, and Assad, he [Saddam Hussein] was a secular Arab nationalist who lived and wielded power according to rules that were hardly uniformly Islamic."
-- from the comment by Robert

The phrase "secular Arab nationalist" may lead to some misunderstanding. Nasser and Saddam Hussein had pretensions to become King of the Arabs, but they were Muslims, ready wheneever necessary to appeal to, and exploit, Muslim history, and neither one was impelled by a genuine sense of the "secular." In Nasser's case, it would have made no sense, in the years before OPEC trillions (which Egypt in any case did not share in), or the millions of Muslim immmigrants settled deep behind the enemy lines of Western Europe, for him, an army colonel interested in modernizing Egypt and in enlarging his own power and greatness, to appeal to any pan-Islamic sentiment. After all, his main threat were those who were completely Muslim, the Ikhwan al-muslimin or Muslim Brotherhood, founded by Tariq Ramadan's grandfather Hasan al-Banna back in 1928, when thes dansants at Shepheard's Hotel were still in full swing, and the syce-runners waiting patiently outside, and Levantines were reading La Gazette du Caire. Nasser's only political rival were the fanatically Muslim, and he represented not true "secularism" but rather, a less intense form of Islam. But, as he demonstrated again and again, he was prepared to use, and be used by, Islam -- and his seizing the property of, and throwing out of the country, Greeks, Jews, Armenians, Italians and others could be seen as an act of "nationalism" but could also be seen as an act against Infidels. Certainly his rhetoric before and during the Six-Day War was dripping with Islamic themes, and so was, for years, the Egyptian press. How could it be otherwise? Egypt was largely Muslim. And it is today?

As for Saddam Hussein, he realized that the Shi'a were more numerous than the Sunnis (though not quite to the extent that they have become today), and that the best way for a Sunni despotism to survive would be to disguise it as something else. Any Islam-based opposition to the rule of Saddam Hussein would have to be, among the Arabs, mosque-based, and that meant many of them would be Shi'a mosques, and that would be dangerous for the Sunni rulers of Iraq.

In Syria, Ba'athism helped to disguise the Alawite dictatorship, and since the Alawites are about 12% of the population, and with their cult of Mary are dangerously un-Islamic (in fact one of their achievements was to receive, in recent years, a fatwa from Shi'a Muslims in Iran offering the opinion that Alawites were indeed orthodox Muslims -- but as the Sunnis might say, this may be a case of needing a second opinion), they needed such a disguise. The Alawites, a minority despised by the Sunni Arabs, came to power only as a result of their having served the French as part of the "Troupes Speciales," and then having formed a kind of military caste, and finally, the Air Force officer Hafez al-Assad put himself, and other Alawites (the only people he could fully trust) in power. He could not possibly abandon "secular" Ba'athism, because he had to appeal not only to Christians (with Armenians forming one of the special household-guard units), who realized the Alawites were their only protectors against the real Muslims, but also to those Muslims who were more alarmed by the Ikhwan than they were offended by the syncretistic Alawites.

In Iraq, the disguise was needed by the Sunnis, and furthermore, it left open the possiblilty for Shi'a Arabs, for Kurds, even for the odd Christian (and Tariq Aziz was very odd), to join the Ba'ath Party and to some modest degree, at least pretend to have a share in the power.

But Saddam Hussein appealed to Islamic history, again and again. He naturally named his battles and campaigns against Iran after famous battles in that history. He named his war against the Kurds "Al-Anfal" after a sura in the Qur'an. He built mosques, and was building the largest mosque in the world. He commissioned Qur'ans, including one calligraphed using an ink consisting mainly of his, Saddam Hussein's, own blood. He put a Qur'anic inscription on the Iraqi flag.

And had Nasser lived longer, one would not have been surprised to find him embracing Islam more openly, as Saddam Hussein found himself doing. First, out of political necessity. Second, because in the end, these were not true "secularists" as this word is commonly used in the West. They were simply just a bit less fanatically Muslim than some other Muslims who were their political rivals.

But real "secularists" in the Western sense? Never. Not possible.

Posted by: Hugh at December 30, 2006 9:30 AM

Mr. Spencer,

are you saying that Saddam should have been reisntated into power in Iraq?

Posted by: loler at December 30, 2006 10:28 AM

Gee no secular Arabs Leaders eh ? what a shame. i guess it's ok to have a Hussein who is responsible for over a million deaths because he was secular ? what's the diff? a Tyrant is a tyrant , secular or not. being an Islamic extremist or being a Dictator makes no difference. give either one the same power and give either one Nuclear weapons and the means to cause chaos and you will see the same results. it's in the Muslim mindset. i am no subscriber to the theory that a brutal secular Monster is any better to have around than a brutal Religios Fanatical Monster. Millions will die either way. let's eliminate the monsters all together.
Democracy and separation of church and state is the answer. not the lesser of two Evils.

Posted by: Concerned Canadian at December 30, 2006 10:32 AM

Saddam, just before execution, shouts: "God is great. The nation will be victorious and Palestine is Arab" (*

The Muslims dancing in the streets after the news of Sadam's death in the US are also shouting 'God is great'. Every God damn Muslim, no matter how bad they have been always shout Alla Akabar (God is great).

I am no expert on GOD, but how come it always ends up with win-win situation in the Muslim circles. By the way, can't imagine that God need to be reminded that God is Great, as if there is any doubt about that! The main problem that we appear to have is that Muslims think they own God, and it is only theirs. They want to kill us for that.

Posted by: MusHuntCowboy at December 30, 2006 10:48 AM

Huge
Thanks for all that information. I never knew that the Alewites entrée to power (ruling Syria) came from being the toadies of the French. Interesting!

Posted by: dennisw at December 30, 2006 10:58 AM

The Middle East is making it's rejection of Westernization quite clear.

Outside a completely Utopian Diplomatic effort. Nuanced outside any realm of reality. There is no Diplomacy to check Militant Islam that doesn't improve their capabilities over time.

Outside a Military Solution.

Leaving Iraq needs to be on our terms based upon what is in our best interest. Picking up our toys and running away, as the Democrats wish. Is not an option.

A Despot, is a Despot, is a Despot Secular or Religious. The King hack and stabber is gone. Surely to be replaced by another seeking Blood upon their hands.

The Oil flow from the Middle East is the only real weapon the Arabs really have.

Diplomacy may help in letting the Oil to continue flowing as one headache at a time is treated. But that is about it.

Iran needs the same future as we gave Iraq.

We need a Manhattan project in the Energy Field. Like yesterday.

We need a major investment in Standoff weaponry.

Posted by: flowerknife_us at December 30, 2006 11:06 AM

saddam is dead the wicked witch is dead --no lets find that piece of dung osama --and release him into the streets of NYC let the New Yorkers at him. Can you feel the love?

Posted by: THE ALLIES SHALL WIN at December 30, 2006 11:23 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/12/30/hussein/index.html

You can see video of them leading him up to and putting the noose around his head.

And so it ends. at least for him.

Posted by: Concerned Canadian at December 30, 2006 11:23 AM

now lets also get Irans PM and hang him too --that maniac wants to nuke everything

Posted by: THE ALLIES SHALL WIN at December 30, 2006 11:23 AM

I often wonder if releasing Saddam would be such a bad thing. Saddam would understand, in very clear terms, that we could get him any time we want. I am certain the technology exists to "bug" Saddam so we can track and monitor him; hence pick him off at will. We then move our troops to the outskirts of the country to seal it off. Saddam has a month to restore order and sell us oil at a very fair and reduced price. We can use him to start a war with Iran and basically, plunge the ME into a lot more turmoil.
Well, it can't be much worse than what we have there now.
A useless point since he is already dead and we can't go back but...

Posted by: Sir Oinks Alot at December 30, 2006 11:42 AM

Mr. Spencer,
"are you saying that Saddam should have been reisntated into power in Iraq?"
Posted by: loler at December 30, 2006 10:28 AM

I don't believe he was suggesting that at all. He was stating the fact that as more of a "secular" despot(as clarified by Hugh), his true devotion to Islam as we know it was in question. Sure, he used it at as a tool at the end to serve his own narcissistic needs, primarily to be seen as a martyr, but he predominantly ruled Iraq with an iron fist that did not quite fit the mold of your average Islamic Republic these days.

His power was considerable during his reign, but that being said, in reality, he was not on top of the list of true enemies to the West. This fact however, was and is being completely obfuscated by the MSM and the current US administration in Washington.

Now that the tyrant is gone, the country is not unified in any way. Robert contends that Iran might be the only one who could "unite" the country, with all the lovely stuff they would impose to achieve this.

Of course Iranian Shi'ites are happy. Saddam was a major stone in their shoe. They could not compel him to conform to their will. Robert is just speculating on what might have happened if he still was in power. Who would have come out on top in that struggle?

Remember, that Hussein attacked Iran about a decade before the Gulf War. It was a war that served the West's interests nicely, with Reagan being the prime puppetmaster of both sides.

In my own opinion, I think the passing of Hussein hurts the West ultimately. His chants of "Allahu Akbar", "long live the Jihadi", et al only reinforce the deceptive islamic talking point that people like Saddam were "extremists" and not representative of the majority of "moderate" Muslims. This will further cloud the West's realization as to the true nature of applied Islam.

Robert's insight that Iran is the ultimate benefactor from Bush's Iraq Democracy project, which I whole heartedly agree with, will become obvious to the masses before too long.

The damage of perceiving Hussein as an abberation to Islam, as opposed to one who simply could not be bothered to subscribe to it unless presented with direct personal gain, remains to be seen.

Posted by: awake at December 30, 2006 11:43 AM

"I often wonder if releasing Saddam would be such a bad thing."
Posted by: Sir Oinks Alot at December 30, 2006 11:42 AM

You are, err.. were not alone in this thinking, sir.

Posted by: awake at December 30, 2006 11:47 AM

See a sarcastic visual of George Bush playing a round of “Hangman”…here:

www.thoughttheater.com

Posted by: thoughttheater at December 30, 2006 11:48 AM

In all fairness, I do think we should put Blair and Bush to the gallows as well, for starting an illegal offensive war that has resulted in the deaths of over 650,000 Iraqi civilians, 3000 american and 200+ coalition soldier deaths. Not to mention destroying the countrys infrastructure and pummeling it into civil war. While we're at it, let's offer the same service to Donald Rumsfield, Bush Senior and anybody else who sold weapons to and kept in power, Saddam Hussein.

RIP Hussy.

Posted by: loler at December 30, 2006 12:00 PM

loler

I am not a fan of Bush but come now...650,000 dead Iraqis????

Really?

Where did you get that number??

Liberals need to understand Islam is a danger to women's rights and freedom of speech and stop this multicultural crap.

Conservatives need to understand that democracy and free markets are not going to make Islam nice.

You both are wrong...its time for a new cop.

Posted by: greatcometof1577 at December 30, 2006 12:13 PM

Muhammad reincarnate Saddam Hussein was half as bad as the original. Muhammad aka NaziAllah was ten times more ruthless, perverted, and sick. It puzzles me why Muslims despise Saddam when he was not half as bad as their prophet (whatever). Muhammad was not only an intolerant dictator, but also an enormous rapist, looter, and snatcher of souls. One has to only look at Saddam’s devotion to the Quran to see where he got his inspirations from. To call Muhammad Saddam would be complement as he looked like Saddam, did worse acts, was more despicable towards females, and had far less tolerance.

Posted by: ofcourse at December 30, 2006 12:15 PM

I wish you guys would stop referring to Allah as God. They are not the same.

Posted by: ofcourse at December 30, 2006 12:24 PM

http://sheikyermami.com/2006/12/30/do-you-support-the-death-penalty/

The Eurabians deride the Americans for supporting it, blame the Chinese for executing more than anyone else, rarely blame third-world dictators for torturing and killing their opponents and let their own murderers off after a few years in luxurious prisons, where vermin is supposed to be re-socialized and transformed to re-join the human race.

Europeans believe in their moral and civilizational superiority and deride America for being tough on crime.

Let us know what YOU think!

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at December 30, 2006 12:53 PM

allahu akbar he screamed just before he went swinging from the end of the rope from the gallows!
I couldnt agree more, great work allah just not enough of it! lets see osama swinging from the end of a rope and his lil dog ahmadinejad too!
We aint in kansas no mo toto!

Posted by: thndrbang1 at December 30, 2006 1:03 PM

Ding Dong, the thug is dead!
and so are his sons...
Say what you will, Iraq has a better chance at a future than with those criminals running a country like their personal playground.

Posted by: Sentinel at December 30, 2006 1:03 PM

loler --

Bush and Blair deserve the gallows? Spoken like a true Dhimmicrat.

Posted by: champ at December 30, 2006 1:08 PM

For my part this issue is not about G-d or allah or whether they are the same or whose religion is superior. This conflict is broader than that. It is about freedom and living under laws that give each person protections regardless of their religion or even total disinterest in religion. Maybe it is more than that..there is something creepy about islam that turns me off in a visceral way that I can't describe but I know it is strong. I just sent a letter to Sen.Boxer thanking her for her rescinding the award for CAIR. It's about time she walked on her back feet.

Posted by: pismopal at December 30, 2006 1:08 PM

americaningermany
--------
There is no way that there have been 650,000 Iraqi casualties in this war.

That is a propaganda scheme cooked up by islamists to get muslims in western nations riled up.
--------

It was done by Lancet.

--------
Donald Rumsfeld, Bush and Blair should be sent to the gallows?
Well, maybe, but what about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Osama bin Laden (if they ever catch him), and countless other jihadist thugs now in custody?
--------

I don't think Madmouth has done anything yet. Osama bin Laden is another criminal act by the United States; he is their creation.

Posted by: loler at December 30, 2006 1:13 PM

Sadistic Arab Doing Damnedable Atrocities Malevolently is what Saddam is and the Arabs who are upset over his execution only reveal how Godless and allahless they are in their low self esteem sand factories which turn out human fodder for Islam.
There are no such people as Palestinians. They are instead neo Syrians who were imported to region when other Arab, Persian and as of late Ashkenazi empires brought them in to be a front against the Judeans. The people of Gaza are Philistines of ancient heritage, but none are Palestinians.
Of most interesting note Mark Twain upon visiting the region stated you could count the number of Arabs on your hand living there as they were that scarce in the late 1800's.
This kind of ignorance and low self esteem is what is the ton ball weight to the Islamic shackles which create millions of miserable Muslims. It is a religion of a god of doom, misery, imam dictators and judgement. General Patton stated the clearest point in, "Islam has kept the people of that region stagnant for 700 years without any advancement."
That is the truth and until Muslim women start taking off the robes and telling Muslim males it is their sexual problems they are trying to cover up there is only going to be a continueing line of Saddams dictating the an entire region brutality.
All religions incorporate female attributes of caring to balance the punishment. Islam takes the best qualities of humanity in women and negates them.
Islam needs Islamic women for starters to make it a religion of peace and then Islam needs the intellectuals to point out it is a bastardized Judeo Christian religion which took all the Love out of context and left nothing but hate.
Until women and enlightened scholars refine that religion to God all you get are murderous and miserable people.

Posted by: Lame Cherry at December 30, 2006 1:28 PM

"I don't think Madmouth has done anything yet"

Huh? Are you kidding?! Ahmad has stated his intentions to "wipe Israel off of the map", and he's also defied the UN/US concerning sanctions on Iran's nuclear program. What does he need to "do", make good on his threats before you'll wake up?

Making threats to murder people and showing you have the means to do so needs to be taken very seriously.

Jeez -- if someone threatened to kill you and your family, and you knew they owned weapons and could easily carry out that threat, then would you sit by and do nothing? Sounds like you would. But if you say that you WOULD do something, then you have a double standard.

It's Dhimmi's like you that frighten me; and maybe you should move to Iran. In one post you want to see President Bush hanged, and in another post you practically defend Ahmad by minimizing his actions.

Move to Iran -- we won't miss you!!

Posted by: champ at December 30, 2006 1:34 PM

To say in the words or to phrase it in the words from a former US president who will be buried in a few days, thanks for the inspiration, Gerald Ford, "their national nightmare ( the Iraqis ) is now over". What a way to celibrate the new year, 2007, could begin for Iraq on a clean black board.

Also this hanging of Saddam should send a message to other dictatorships such as Iran, which now is starting to get a bit unstable, since President Nutjob has been handed a stunning defeat by his own citizens in recent Iranian parliment elections that not all is well in the "Islamic Republic of Iran". Also there has been more protests by the college students over there. Also the other ME dictators, be they muallahs, kings, or other tyrants should pause and take note, the hot winds of democracy is blowing in that very troubled region of the world.

A very good 2007 to all at JW/DW.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at December 30, 2006 1:38 PM

If the Kuran teaches first-degree murder, Islam is a school in our global village teaching the 'religious' curriculum of murder to a global student body.

And Saddam must be reckoned a star pupil of Islam's. He murdered millions of 'kaffir'. Truly Saddam learneed the art of murder as well as anyone.

SO---

What better tribute to him and his vile, wanton transcript of slaughter, bloodshed and human degradation than the pile of poop and body fluids exiting his corpse dangling from the rafters?

May Saddam graduate to eternal oblivion!

AND--

What better valedictorian could Saddam have had than Satan who undoubtedly is smiling towards Saddam here on earth somewhere(even if he didn't get to make a graduation speech during saddam's execution--or did he? was Vladimir Putin around--that's close enough). Who knows, maybe Saddam even brought the horned one an apple at school once.

Posted by: pythagoras at December 30, 2006 1:39 PM

pismopal it is totally about Allah (Muhammad) because it is his supremacist Nazi times ten ideology we are fighting. You can fight this inhumane anti-Christ ideology (Islam) from whichever stand you like; it is the enemy of mankind. There is simply no question it is evil:
-Ivory Coast
-Liberia
-Nigeria
-Sudan
-Somalia
-Libya
-Algeria
-Egypt
-Israel
-Lebanon
-Syria
-Iraq
-Cyprus
-Need I go on! Do I really need to go on!

Posted by: ofcourse at December 30, 2006 1:40 PM

God have mercy on this man's soul!

The U.S. put him there in the 1st place - used him - them threw him away for expediency. This admin. is the most black with corruption.

As well, it may not even be the real one, as ther were at least 4 extras. There were pics of sad__am in his hey day - with straight white teeth - and another of S. as a preisoner with uneven, yellow teeth. The dental works don't match.

What is the deal with the clerics wanting him dead in Iraq - with the claim of S's atrocities?
He was no better no worse than what the clerics themselves do. And with NO mercy.

In fact, S was leading the Iraq into the modern age. He had marginalized the clerics & religion.

Under him there were Universities, electricity, clean water, women were in Ph Ds, & professors - and were going about in jeans & pant suits.

Certainly, Saudi Arabia & Iran hated him - and the clerics hated him - scared to death of the man.

As an aside, re. sad__m's attack on Kuwait - that country was part of Iraq before. The sheiks in Kuwait were scared to loss their high places - they're no better than S. The rich in all islamic countries go to France and skiing in the Alps for vacation - were high fashions, Fr perfume & Tiffany gems - but for the lower classes - it doesn't make a different. It is they upon which the sharia laws are imposed.

Foolds that they are! Looking towards the West for reform - instead of looking at their own wealthy hypocritical slime.

Posted by: allat at December 30, 2006 1:58 PM

"With Saddam out of power, there is no one with the will or the strength to keep Iraq united, except possibly Iran -- the chief beneficiary of the American democracy project. Here is yet another fruit of the wholesale ignorance of and wishful thinking about Islam that prevails in Washington."

Here's hoping the next American president tells the people of Europe and all "oppressed" peoples of the world to take a hike. Next time they want something done, I hope he tells them that if they want something done right, they should do it themselves. They don't want to be contaminated by the evil arrogant Americans.

The US will do whatever is in its interests, thank you. It's nothing we should apologize for or be ashamed of. Those who think it's wrong don't need American aid of any kind - military or humanitarian or economic. We're hypocrites? LOOK IN THE MIRROR!!!!

People of Iran: free yourselves!!!

Posted by: PMK at December 30, 2006 2:18 PM

Saddam is death..

America has brought democracy and freedom in Iraq..

As if the Iraqis begged for democracy and as if there were democracies in Saudi Arabia and Jordan and UAE, all puppet regimes of Washington..

So, now you think that it is over..

No, what seems to be ending....
is only the beginning of long sleepless nights....(Excerpt from the novel "The Exorcist")..

Wait and see..

Posted by: Icarus_Project at December 30, 2006 2:28 PM

Hi American!

Loler, and others like him, must be the descendants of the same numbskulls who swept Hitler's "redflags" under the rug.

Maybe history has to repeat itself before those blinded by stupidity will wake up.

I want to go on record as saying that Iran's nuclear program needs to be "wiped off of the map", and soon. Like yesterday.

Posted by: champ at December 30, 2006 2:37 PM

Yeah PMK I agree, the British Army should never have spent it’s treasure and lives assisting in a shitty war that in truth had nothing to do with the ‘War on Terror’.

Saddam wasn’t a threat, but now Iraq is.

We would have been better exerting our efforts in Afghanistan. By now the place could have been awash with Halal McDonalds and the opium trade burnt out. But of course there is no profit in Afghanistan compared to Iraq.

So instead we have Iran taking the piss as we fight on two fronts against an unlimited supply of lunatic asylum patients high on God bothering and the smell of cordite.

Thanks PMK for your appreciation of our dead soldiers.

Posted by: Mert at December 30, 2006 2:44 PM

I often wonder if releasing Saddam would be such a bad thing. Saddam would understand, in very clear terms, that we could get him any time we want.

Posted by: Sir Oinks Alot at December 30, 2006 11:42 AM

With all due respect Saddam was released after the 91 war..... and the first thing he did was to clean up the Kurds by the hundreds, while US forces were watching, leading to No Fly Zones, leading to attacks on drones, leading to sanctions, leading to Oil-for-Food, leading to kick-backs, leading to palaces for Saddam and his henchmen...

Posted by: Alert at December 30, 2006 2:49 PM

The U.S. put him there in the 1st place - used him - them threw him away for expediency. This admin. is the most black with corruption.

allat,
Saddam was all things to all people. He was a secularist to the West and a pious Muslim to the Islamists. He put the Muslim call of "Allahu Akbar" on the Iraqi flag. That's a heck of a way to marginalize religion and the clerics. He was some secularist!!

Exactly how and when did the US put Saddam in power? Saddam took power in 1979. Iraq was a SOVIET ally during the Cold War. Almost every Muslim country in the Middle East that was ruled by a "secular" leader was a Soviet ally. That includes Egypt (until about 1973), Syria and Libya.

The US used him? How? If so, wasn't it Jimmy Carter, that wonderful Democrat, who did so after throwing the people of Iran over because the Shah wasn't pure enough for him to associate with?
Saddam used the US as well, so I'd call that argument a draw. He got in over his head when he attacked Iran and relied on the US hatred of Iran to ensure his own survival. He accepted US help when it suited his purposes. Each scratched the other's back when it suited him. I guess the US was also evil for "using" Russia to beat Germany and then turning on them afterward?

"In fact, S was leading the Iraq into the modern age. He had marginalized the clerics & religion."

The Baathists had ruled Iraq for decades. Saddam took over a country that was already IN the modern age. It had a scientific community, farming communities and a large oil industry. It should have been one of the wealthiest countries in the region, but it wasn't. Under his rule it decayed. He spent Iraqi resources starting two wars with his neighbors, financing terrorism, building palaces and buying support from countries like France and China.
He didn't try to unite the people. He used tribal and sectarian rivalries to keep himself in power and his opponents at bay. Divide and rule.

Posted by: PMK at December 30, 2006 2:52 PM

Mert,
Sorry you took it that way. Robert was the one who said this was a stupid exercise. I believe in freedom. I also believe our soldiers should not be wasted in areas of the world that aren't interested in freedom or peaceful coexistence.
They are a precious resource and should not be squandered lightly. I look at Iran and I say it's not worth one dead American. Sorry if you can't understand that.
I look at Somalia, where Americans tried to help and got attacked, their helicopter shot down and their dead bodies dragged through the streets. Never again.
I look at Darfur and I listen to people who say we need to go in there and I ask: why? Nothing we do will please them.
Nations have no permanent allies, only permanent interests. Our soldiers have the same interests as the rest of us do: we want to be free.

The US and Britain spent ten-plus years patrolling no-fly zones and being shot at while Russia, France and China were making deals with Saddam and making a joke of UN sanctions and the Oil For Food program.

American, British and many other nations' soldiers gave life and limb to remove Saddam from power. What good did it do? British Muslims are attacking their own countrymen, killing them in the tubes. We're considered aggressors.
What do you want? If we act we're arrogant and if we mind our own business then we're selfish and arrogant. Our soldiers' sacrifice was not wasted. They should have opened your eyes to the futility of doing anything good for Muslims. They opened mine. It's not a pretty picture, but I can't pretend it's not there. That doesn't mean I think we were wrong to go in. It just means we should tell the world we are not at their beck and call. The people of Iran threw out the shah and they welcomed the mullahs. They're a proud, nationalistic people. Nothing we can do will please them. They cheer on Ahmadinejad (don't be fooled by recent protests) and they are proud of the nuclear program. Fine. They love Iran. They can free it themselves. They're not poor and they're not helpless. Let them take some responsibility for themselves.
Is that really so bad?

Posted by: PMK at December 30, 2006 3:05 PM

To the bunch of you:

Nice generalizations of my opinions. I'll call you when I feel the need to have my thoughts dictated to me by some numbnuts.
Just because you eat up anything the neocons shove in your face (yum yum, WMDs!) does not mean that I agree with Irans nuclear ambitions or love Hitler. Remember fellow Americans, you were quite the fans of Hitler before your MIC wanted to push into Europe by virtue of your government and get a whole lot of Americans killed simply to get some money in their pockets. And if that wasn't enough, you were kind enough to take over the defense of Europe after the war which gave the governments here the perfect opportunity to create these hellish welfare social-democratic autocracies with the money they didn't have to spend on their defense from the Soviets. Thanks a bunch.

Now, the fact remains that the US created Saddam. The US fed, armed, protected and financed his regime. Granted, he was an instrument of his time, but still, his creators are just as guilty of Saddams atrocities as good old Hussy himself. String up Bush (the monkey) and his lying cohorts (including Blair), Daddy Bush, Rumsfeld and whoever else supplied Saddam with the gas he used on the Kurds.

It's funny, and no coincidence, that the first charges levied against Saddam had the punishment of death penalty associated with them. God forbid, allowing this farce in which Saddams attorneys were assassinated to continue, they would have had to bring up the American connections! By the way, what happens in an American court if the defendants attorneys get assassinated one after the other?

Posted by: loler at December 30, 2006 3:17 PM

"They're not poor and they're not helpless. Let them take some responsibility for themselves.
Is that really so bad"?

PMK, could not have summed it up better. Agree with you. They are incorrigibly, incurably parasitical carcasses.

Posted by: Crows&Cows at December 30, 2006 3:31 PM

Saddm Hussein did not say "Palestine is Arab".
What he said was "Palestine is aarrggh"

Posted by: FreeSpeech at December 30, 2006 3:31 PM

AIG,
Thanks. How do you stand living in Germany?

Loler,
How did the US create Saddam, given that the Baathists had run Iraq for decades and that Iraq was a SOVIET ally during the Cold War? Weren't most of Saddam's military using Soviet weapons in all his wars? How did the US create Saddam?

Posted by: PMK at December 30, 2006 3:48 PM

Loler: It is NOT a fact that the United States "MADE" Saddam. AND------

You sure do provide us with some pretty spectacular 'LOLs' yourself. Not bad for a first timer!

And FYI you're wasting your time posting here if you think you're going to fool anyone here. Because you're not.

Saddam Hussein chose to be a dictator on his own dime. No one ever "made" this man do anything in his entire life. In his youth, Saddam was the type who probably got off sticking dynamite up cats' asses. He had a genius for accruing political power. He did not get that from America!

Applying brutality, FYI, is the chosen occupation of virtually all politicans in the Islamic world. Saddam was not a product of the west, but of Islamic political culture. Violence has been the nature of the Middle Eas's politics since Babylon at least 4ooo years ago. It is NOT going to change. America is not responsible for this!

We can't help noticing that you have omitted Russia in your anti-western diatribe. How strange as Russia has been supplying the Middle East dictators with REAL WMDs for decades. Yasser Arafat himself was a member lof the KGB!! WOuld you care???? Your ideological bias to Communism won't permit you to, will it?.

Your point that the west should not have been doing business with Saddam is valid. But France, Germany, and Mother Russia are all far more culpable than is America. These nations all sold Saddam billions of dollars worth of weapons--purely out of greed 9especially with the Oill for Food scandals--remember that vast fiasco which America wasn't involved in). Especially the Chirac regime which continued to deal with Hussein even after the US-led invasion in 2003.

At least America had a valid strategic reason to side with Hussein's govermnment--it used his government to deal with the Iranian mullahs who had waged a jihad against America in the mid-1970s. If the Muslims hadn't done that, the US might well have kept a low profile in the region.

So, blame the Islamosphere for Saddam Hussein. No matter who runs Iraq, blood will follow. As it always has. Even without America.

BY the way, the "neocons" are NOT the source of information about Saddam's cache of WMDs--the source was defecting members of his OWN cabinet! I even saw filmed interviews of some of these people! SO the neocons have ot right. AND YOU HAVE IT WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: pythagoras at December 30, 2006 3:56 PM

During the Gulf war 1991, the French had Sadam in sight, and asked our Government if we want Sad'am dead and they would deliver. We backed off. Can anyone here figure why?

Posted by: MusHuntCowboy at December 30, 2006 4:09 PM

loler get your facts straight, the US did not make Saddam, it was the oil money and Saddam himself that killed his way up to the top. he was corrupt, and never chose to improve the lives of his people, but chose to divide and conguere. Good riddance to Saddma, and note to other ME dictators, your time is coming. the nutjob from iran will go in a flash of light. if you know what l mean. right now Saddam's is being chaesd by 72 real ugly virgins.LOL

Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at December 30, 2006 4:15 PM

A witness has been silenced

It was the tyranny of deposed president of Iraq Saddam Hussein, that in years 1982 Kurds were gassed under his own orders and today he is hanged for it. But actual the game of terrorism era started after that when Imam Khomeini came into power in neighbouring Iran. To contain Iran; United State and Europe boosted up Saddam Hussein with weapons and arsenals to make him a most power full, staunch US ally in Middle East; to fight a long war of attrition for US against Iran. Saddam fought for eight years in order to fully deplete Iran. Millions of Iranian as well as Iraqi died. To cover up the atrocities committed on the behest of US with the weapons and arsenals supplied by US and Europe; today a witness has successfully been silenced.

The Irony here is that the crimes for which Saddam Hussein was convicted occurred some 15 Months before US decided to go in bed with him and sent Rumesfeld to embrace him. Those crimes were well known to United States before Rumesfeld visited Iraq to usher in alliance between United States and Saddam to defeat Iran.

‘Fact is that deceased knew a great deal about United States’ role in Iraq, including deals made with Bush’s father. In the second phase ‘Saddam- US Alliance’ was suppose to be on trail. But before that could happen; this rush to execute him had the feel of a gangster silencing the key witness to a crime.’
---------------------
Love for all, Hatred for none

Posted by: A Khokar at December 30, 2006 4:27 PM

i dont think saddam should have been executed he should have been free to rule iraq again saddam was secular he was not pro osama and protected the christians in iraq

now more christians are forced out of iraq and theres more violence

Posted by: Greek Gurl at December 30, 2006 4:29 PM

Jihad Watch has it's very own moon bats .... they are out in force on this thread

Posted by: dennisw at December 30, 2006 4:48 PM

Yes its easy for these moonbats such as loler (hum I think the l in the middle is a typo and s/b an s) to sit and hide behind all the comforts afforded by western society and wave the moonbat flag with such vigor. They in their ignorance seem to ignore the reality that they and thier ilk would be the first to be lined up and shot by beloved dictators and thugs or thrown in seedy prisons for eternity. Let them go live in one of these countries ( they all think Castro is great too, let them go to Cuba and try to exercise thier "freedom of speech") and perhaps in a month or two they would realize the West ain't so bad afta all. Talk is cheap and hypocrisy is even cheaper. Just like the unhinged left who now becry chant of "no death penalty" now that poor,poor Saddam has been swung by the neck. Where were they when his thousands were being butchered ? Where were the womens libbers when the rape rooms were in full swing ? Suckin down lattes and watchin CSI or American Idol, sitting in thier 78 degree perfectly controlled temperature homes and SUV's..

Posted by: TheRegulator at December 30, 2006 5:11 PM

PMK oceans no longer separate us anymore. Nor do large areas of land. And I’m not only talking about people separation, I’m talking about weapon reach. Your utopian idea of seclusion sounds very nice, except for the little flaw that we don’t live on another world. Fact 1: technological advancement is continuous in all countries. Fact 2: the Islamists who create the environments you so despise are colonizing our lands.

Consider these 20th century what-ifs:
-How much better would the world be had the Islamists not taken over Iran.
-How much better would the world be had the Islamists not taken over Christian Lebanon.
-How much better would the world be had the Islamists not killed 2 million Sudanese Christians.
- How much better would the world be had the Islamists not killed 5 million Armenians, Greeks, and Lebanese Christians.
-How much better would the world be had the Islamists been destroyed by Russia.

Those who think Iraq was ever modernised by Muslims are fooling themselves. Fact 3: Muslims empower dictators. No one is to be blamed for Saddam ruling Iraq, but Islam and the Muslims who abide by it. No one is to be blamed for Assad ruling Syria, but Islam and the Muslims who abide by it. And the list goes on. Those who think otherwise obviously have a lot more to discover about Islam.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061230/wl_nm/iraq_saddam_haj_dc

Arab haj pilgrims outraged at Saddam execution
By Souhail Karam Sat Dec 30, 11:40 AM ET

MECCA, Saudi Arabia (Reuters) - Arab pilgrims in Mecca expressed outrage on Saturday that Iraqi authorities had chosen to execute former Iraqi leader
Error! Not a valid embedded object.Error! Not a valid embedded object.Error! Not a valid embedded object.Error! Not a valid embedded object.Error! Not a valid embedded object.Error! Not a valid embedded object.Error! Not a valid embedded object.
Saddam Hussein on a major religious holiday, saying it was an insult to Muslims.

Sunni Arabs at the haj were shocked at Saddam's hanging which followed his conviction for crimes against humanity against Iraqi Shi'ites.
"His execution on the day of Eid ... is an insult to all Muslims," said Jordanian pilgrim Nidal Mohammad Salah. "What happened is not good because as a head of state, he should not be executed."
The Eid al-Adha, or Feast of the Sacrifice, marks biblical patriarch Abraham's willingness to kill his son for God. Muslim countries often pardon criminals to mark the feast, and prisoners are rarely executed at that time.
The death could harden hatred for Shi'ite Muslims in Saudi Arabia, a bastion of Sunni Islam whose Islamic orthodoxy -- known as Wahhabism -- regards Shi'ites as virtual heretics.
"This timing was chosen to turn our joy during Eid to sadness. I don't say this for grief over Saddam ... but we must ready ourselves for a new enemy from the East," a user on an Islamist Web site said, referring to Shi'ites in
Error! Not a valid embedded object.Error! Not a valid embedded object.Error! Not a valid embedded object.Error! Not a valid embedded object.Error! Not a valid embedded object.Error! Not a valid embedded object.Error! Not a valid embedded object.
Iran.
Saddam, a Sunni, was admired by many Arabs for standing up to the United States. Haj authorities fear his death could stoke tensions between Sunni and Shi'ite pilgrims.
Eid falls during the 5-day haj, when more than 2 million Muslims from around the world follow ancient rites at the Islamic Muslim holy city of Mecca in Saudi Arabia.
"I don't want to believe it. Saddam cannot die. Is this the good news we get on our Eid?" said Saudi Nawaf al-Harbi.
But many Shi'ites regard Saddam's death as a gift from God.
"Congratulations, this is like two Eids! I hope God will not have mercy on him," Iraqi Nadir Abdullah said amid a group of jubilant pilgrims.
PREOCCUPIED
Security was already heightened for this haj season because of sectarian strife between Sunnis and Shi'ites in
Error! Not a valid embedded object.Error! Not a valid embedded object.Error! Not a valid embedded object.Error! Not a valid embedded object.Error! Not a valid embedded object.Error! Not a valid embedded object.Error! Not a valid embedded object.
Iraq and elsewhere in the region.
Haj pilgrims dress in simple white garments that can disguise differences of sect and nationality. Many come from outside the Middle East and on Saturday most were preoccupied with the next stage of the rites, the symbolic stoning of the devil at the Jamarat Bridge.
But many felt Saddam's execution would only worsen sectarian violence in Iraq.
"This is unbelievable. Things will not improve in Iraq now that Saddam is dead," said a Syrian pilgrim, Abu Mostafa. "There will be more violence and more Arab anger toward the West."
For Iraqi Kurds like Aladdin Suleiman Mohammad, the execution was a "fair decision" regardless of timing, though it dashed hopes of justice for crimes against Kurds.
Saddam's second trial on charges of war crimes against Iraqi Kurds in what is known as the "Anfal" or "Spoils of War" campaign, had been due to resume next month.
But many Arabs said if anyone should be put on trial it was the Shi'ite-led Iraqi government that backed the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, which overthrew Saddam.
"They are American collaborators, those in Iraq. They should be executed, not Saddam Hussein." said Mohammad Mousa, on haj from Lebanon. "Saddam Hussein is the most honorable of all of them. He is the most honorable Arab. They will go to hell, he will go to heaven."

Posted by: ofcourse at December 30, 2006 5:36 PM

During the Gulf war 1991, the French had Sadam in sight, and asked our Government if we want Sad'am dead and they would deliver. We backed off. Can anyone here figure why?

posted by musthuntcowboy

Because he, evil as he was, did keep the three groups from killing each other. And we knew it. I used to read alot of Spy-military-techno-thriller books before the news got more interesting than any novelist could think up. I can't remember the name of one that was written right after the Gulf War about three spies who went in to kill him and got called off the job for that very reason.

Hi American in Germany, was beginning to wonder what happened to you. I just spoke to a German friend who visited home this fall and came away disgusted sbout how filthy the country had become. I can't imagine GE dirty.
My (German) husband about fainted when I told him about taking the Santas out of the Chriskindel Markets.

Have a wonderful New Year everyone. Hold up a glass to "absent comrades" who are defending our freedoms in that hell-hole.

Posted by: auntbea at December 30, 2006 5:48 PM

"i dont think saddam should have been executed he should have been free to rule iraq again saddam was secular he was not pro osama and protected the christians in iraq now more christians are forced out of iraq and theres more violence
Posted by: Greek Gurl"

I agree with you that things have not gone smoothly with Saddam removed. The 'powers that be' really screwed up...unless for some unknown reason....it is not in their financial 'interest' to have a democracy in Iraq. Anyway, any arab democracy would probably vote in persons that the 'powers that be ...(i.e. corporate america) would not want in power - would not be easily manipulated for financial gain (cheap labor, cheap oil, cheap factories, etc.).

There have been many times of late that I have thought it would be fitting to put Saddam back in power. After all, if the Iraqis are so determined to kill our kids over there...then why not let them be ruled by a barbarian. It would suit them perfectly.

Other times, I remember that Saddam was paying off the arabs in Gaza when they would kill innocent folks having coffee or a meal or just catching a bus to work in Israel. So in reality, he DID pay the penalty for supporting terrorism and for gassing the Kurds, etc., etc., etc.

I think corporate america (those who pull our puppet politician's strings)should have thought about wiping out Iran BEFORE they entertained the thought of going into Iraq. And the nutter with the Mahdi Army....why on earth is he still breathing?

I think we need to put our troops on the borders to keep Iran and Syria OUT. We need to drop a nuke on Tehran and tell Syria they are next if there is ANY indication they are supporting Hezbollah. Lastly, we need to tell the Iraqi government that they have 60 days to get rid of the 'insurgents' and to lock up the trouble makers or they will be next!

Posted by: The Goobs at December 30, 2006 5:48 PM

I watched the recording of parts of the execution and I couldn't help but feel a vague sort of uneasyness. I don't think hanging him was necessary. There are plenty of dictators running free in the world, we continue to treat Saudi Arabia with kid gloves inspite of of it being the epicentre of fundamentalism and terrorism. This is not to say Saddam should be free, he is a criminal but lets not have double standards, hanging him and continuing to talk to Saudi Arabia is ridiculous.

Saddam threatned the people of Iraq and his neighbours, Saudi Arabia's vile idealogy threatens the entire world. We continue this with the focus on Iran while Saudi Arabia continues spreading wahabbism. If Iraqis want democracy and freedom why is it not peaceful now, what are they fighting and killing about? where was the violence when Saddam reigned? I agree with PMX, we should not waste our resources and life here, let them resolve their problems themselves. Maybe you need people like Saddam in these regions, clearly freedom and democracy even when offered on a platter is something the region is showing scant interest in, or they vote in extremists who to create a sytem that is at odds with democracy and freedom.

From the Western perspective Saddam makes more sense than the jihadists currently running wild. Libya, Syria, Iran still have governance, start a democracy project there and you will have more jihad factories. How is this in anybody's interest? The west is critisized for propping up these dictators and critised again for bring them down, the critics have only one agenda and that is hate USA. We should ditch all these pretensions about promoting democracy. Let the region fester in their self created hell. They will come of it when they are ready. When they threaten us like Saudi Arabia insidiously does, there should be a clear and robust response.

Posted by: raulb at December 30, 2006 6:00 PM

Because he, evil as he was, did keep the three groups from killing each other. by auntbea..

Who will be capable of keeping the three factions together?

Looks like our next greater nightmare will be Pakistan.....

IT HAS more than twice as many people as Iran, six times more than Iraq, many primed for Islamic extremism by a legacy of poverty and illiteracy left by decades of misrule by corrupt secular leaders, civilian and military.

It already has nuclear weapons, and ballistic missiles made with North Korean help. It shelters jihadists battling Western forces across its border, and fanatical cells training Muslim youth in Western countries to put bombs on buses and metros.

If Iraq has turned into a nightmare for the US President, George Bush, think about Islamists gaining power in Pakistan, population 166 million, and their hands on its nuclear arsenal.

Across the border in Afghanistan, 31,000 US, Canadian, European and Australian troops are fighting a resurgent Taliban in the country's south.....

Robert .. what is your take on Pakistan?

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/pakistan-could-become-next-us-nightmare/2006/12/29/1166895480059.html

Posted by: MusHuntCowboy at December 30, 2006 6:21 PM

Hey everybody I am stuck in the kitchen in Sunny safe and comfortable Australia ably protected by our anti-dhimmi of the year, Mr John Howard (and co.)

Anyway as I said I am in the kitchen and I was hoping someone on Jihadwatch could send me a recipe for

Unscrambling Eggs..

Posted by: payingattention at December 30, 2006 6:32 PM

Saddam Hussein was a evil, greedy mobster who ruled Iraq with an iron fist.

The first thing he did when he got into power was to hang 7-8 jews. He had them hanged for no reason other than that they were jews.

He then got rid of the competition or those he felt were unloyal in his own Baathist party.

Murdered thounsands of Kurds, Shia and others.

Goodbye Saddam and Good Riddance!! Those who curse Israel are cursed!!!!

Posted by: callmeinfidel at December 30, 2006 6:49 PM

"With Saddam out of power, there is no one with the will or the strength to keep Iraq united, except possibly Iran -- the chief beneficiary of the American democracy project."

Those words should be put on the wall of any NEO Con . The jokes think you cand go to a country , ignore the culture , the history , the political , social , religious , ethnic divisions , staple on this thing called "democracy" and HEY PRESTO , a very hot version of OHIO is suddenly created .

Thinking to shame a 5 year old .

Posted by: ewha1 at December 30, 2006 7:19 PM

Perhaps it was always inevitable that Iran would become the dominant force in Iraq .

Who knows ?

But what's absolutely certain is that it is Iran that's calling the shots
( geddit? ) in Iraq now , and the only reason for this is because of the invasion of Iraq .

Several 1,000 infidels lives later , a cool trillion dollars and Iran is now immeasurably stronger .

In Roman times , a disaster of this magnitude would have meant a few of our leaders being given the "Saddam treatment" .

Posted by: ewha1 at December 30, 2006 7:33 PM

Auntbea
Thank you!..and I will not wait until New Year's eve to hold a glass up to them.

Posted by: pismopal at December 30, 2006 7:34 PM

For those that are interested the full execution can be seen below.

http://one.revver.com/watch/130549/flv

Posted by: km at December 30, 2006 7:42 PM

From auntbea

"During the Gulf war 1991, the French had Sadam in sight, and asked our Government if we want Sad'am dead and they would deliver."

I didn't know that but I can believe it . The French Intelligence is streets ( or should that be boulevards ) ahead of anything the British or CIA have ( though I think the local boy scouts could carry out better intel work than the CIA or British ) .

So we said "non Monsieur" , only to later carry out the very same deed , though this time costing us 1,000's of lives , trillions of dollars , a quagmire of Jurrasic Park proportions , a cocky strutting Iran , the list of "les woes" is endless .

You know , with the clowns we have masquerading as leaders in the West , I can believe that too .

How about just raising the white flag and getting it over with . I'm not calling for inspired leadership , Christ , I'd be thrilled with sub mediocrity FFS

The Neo Cons were trendy Trots in their university days and they've lost none of their strutting arrogance or bumpkin idiocy .

You also wrote "Hold up a glass to "absent comrades" who are defending our freedoms in that hell-hole."

Tell me the "defending our freedoms" bit was ironic . Please .

Posted by: ewha1 at December 30, 2006 7:53 PM

PMK -

Re. your msg to me:

Well, we can go pro and con, but I've researched such articles as this:

http://www.rise4news.net/Saddam-CIA.html

Rumsfeld was pretty chummy with Saddam - a pic is worth a 1000 words.

http://www.injusticebusters.com/index.htg/00001/saddam_Rumsfeld.jpg

This pic has made the round in the net.
I'm NOT the only one with that opinion. Ioler said:

"Now, the fact remains that the US created Saddam. The US fed, armed, protected and financed his regime. Granted, he was an instrument of his time, but still, his creators are just as guilty of Saddams atrocities as good old Hussy himself. String up Bush (the monkey) and his lying cohorts (including Blair), Daddy Bush, Rumsfeld and whoever else supplied Saddam with the gas he used on the Kurds.
It's funny, and no coincidence, that the first charges levied against Saddam had the punishment of death penalty associated with them. God forbid, allowing this farce in which Saddams attorneys were assassinated to continue, they would have had to bring up the American connections!"
--------------

Who is right and who is wrong? Certainly the propaganda and misinformation given to the average person is beyond belief!

As you well know, things are never what they seem in politics and in government. What we see is simply the 1st layer. The rumor is that Saddam was about to change to the Euro - and THAT is why the war started.

The goverment here or anywhere will never tell The People the truth. The excuse being nat'l security, but we know it really is pResidential/cabinet security, congressmen security, alphabet agency security.

What we are, PMK, is like people on the ground- perambulatory, having to walk everywhere, while the airplanes, jets, etcs fly over our heads. We can only look at them and guess who's involved, the destination and the purpose of the plane.

However, I do agree with what you say:

"I believe in freedom. I also believe our soldiers should not be wasted in areas of the world that aren't interested in freedom or peaceful coexistence.
They are a precious resource and should not be squandered lightly. I look at Iran and I say it's not worth one dead American. Sorry if you can't understand that.
I look at Somalia, where Americans tried to help and got attacked, their helicopter shot down and their dead bodies dragged through the streets. Never again.
I look at Darfur and I listen to people who say we need to go in there and I ask: why?"

----------
Al

Posted by: allat at December 30, 2006 8:13 PM

Choosing the lesser of two Evils ; a Secular Tyrant over a religious fanatic is Hypocricy plain and simple! It is disgusting to say one is more preferable. I hear more concern over that than i do for the 1 million plus people this Evil bastard had Raped , murdered, and tortured, and gassed.

so i guess those who see it this ^^way prefer millions to not be murdered in the name of Religion, but prefer them to be murdered by a Secular monster instead ? explain that one?!

How bout NO tyrants? Religious or otherwise.

How weak we have become!

Posted by: Concerned Canadian at December 30, 2006 8:24 PM

Well, was Saddam shouting "God is great" because he thinks he is a martyr?? If so, does he get the virgins now?? Does islam have any virgins left over the age of, say, six or seven?

All of these weighty questions must be the subject of scholarly inquiry . . . if one iw a muslim scholar.

For the rest of us, rejoice in the death. If nothing else, it shows that America and its allies will go to the ends of the earth to kill an enemy. And our only question should be "Who's next?"

Posted by: texan at December 30, 2006 8:29 PM

Saddam is a martyr just like I'm the Queen of England. He was a murderer, and he got exactly what he deserved -- only better. Justice would've dragged his sorry ass from his home and tortured him to death just like he had done to others. Hanging was a merciful death for someone like him.

Posted by: champ at December 31, 2006 2:17 AM

Tell me the "defending our freedoms" bit was ironic . Please .

Not in the least.

I believe that all military personnel are doing just that, every day no matter what their Job is. The men and women who are standing guard by Gerald Ford's coffin, the soldier who stood guard last night outside Fort Riley's gate are all defending our freedom.
Any man or woman who holds up their hand and swears the oath is defending our freedom. Just because management doesn't call the right plays doesn't mean the players or their acts of bravery are any less.

More Americans need to become aware of how "this inalienable right thing" works. That you have these rights and our country only protects them for you.

You need to talk to some of the people who were in the Mid-east years ago. There NEVER has been a right side to be on over there. We tried ignoring them and they came here. Or don't you remember that beautiful September morning?

The fact that most Americans live by the collective good/ rule of law without even considering taking up arms and hurting their fellow citizens is so amazing as to leave me speechless. If you ever get the chance to look at it from the point of being in another culture or country this will become a lot clearer to you.

That last person who ever wants to fight a war is a soldier.

Posted by: auntbea at December 31, 2006 9:04 AM

Apropos allat's hurriedly defensive;) "researched" prolix reply to PMK above:

This is too wearingly familiar ploy to tar all with the same brush. Not so fast allats,Iolers and moonbats of the world:)

"The Meek Shall Inherit....." so ordained by our Maker.

Posted by: Crows&Cows at December 31, 2006 8:14 PM

Lol...how much more schizophrenic can certain 'people' of the world get?

America bashers and haters have unarticulated, ossifiedly entrenched animosity towards America, finger pointing and calling America a Supercop. At the same time they have the temeritous gall to expect the very same America to rush in with aid, awesome charities, Armymen etc etc to remedy THEIR GROtesque wrongsssss....!

Isn't that outrageously farcically audacious??

Posted by: Crows&Cows at December 31, 2006 8:34 PM

Thanks for your reply , AuntBea

I wrote: "Tell me the "defending our freedoms" bit was ironic . Please ."

You replied: "Not in the least."

But what's so obviously apparent is they aren't defending our freedoms by being Iraq . It hasn't sunk in yet ? The pitiful reality of what's happening in that area ? The only people to cheer more than you and others on this thread is the f*&^%$g Iranian leadership

To paraphrase , "It's the strategy stupid" . It doesn't matter how honourable or noble the servicemen's intentions are , it's still "the strategy stupid"

You also wrote: "I believe that all military personnel are doing just that, every day no matter what their Job is."

Well , as I've already said , that's abundantly true , but it means squat if the strategy was formulated by a bunch of pin heads .

You also wrote :

"Any man or woman who holds up their hand and swears the oath is defending our freedom. Just because management doesn't call the right plays doesn't mean the players or their acts of bravery are any less."

See above.

You also wrote:

"You need to talk to some of the people who were in the Mid-east years ago. There NEVER has been a right side to be on over there."

No shit sherlock . That's been the PALEO Cons' rationale from the off not the NEO Cons' .

i.e. We simply don't understand the complexities of the region . Hell , we've got a myriad tribes , religious differences , ethnic lines , political groupings not to mention the nationalities .

It's the NEO Cons who said "Sod the history , we'll give 'em democracy and before you can say 'Honey , I'm home' the whole of the ME will be Ohio Presbyterian "

That's why we should have stayed out , FFS . The noblity of our soldiers simply doesn't enter the equation . In fact it makes a bloody terrible decision , even more disgraceful .

You do see that don't you?

You can differentiate between the poor sods paying with their lives and the pin heads in Washington who came up with this pigs ear of a policy ?

You also wrote

"We tried ignoring them and they came here. Or don't you remember that beautiful September morning?"

No . We embraced the Muslim Brotherhood , we didn't ignore them .

They did our dirty work against the Arab Nationalists , etc . The Muslim Brotherhood ( aka Mujahideen ) were given safe port in Western countries after the Afghan wars . If they'd returned home , their gov'ts would have been at the airport with pair of pliars , hammer and blow torch to welcome them home .

Bin Laden was " on of our guys" only a few years ago

- Read about how 500 Mujahideen were recruited , paid , armed and trained by NATO in 99 to kill some worthless infidel Serbs . NATO didn't want their prcious servicemen put at harms way so they farmed the work out to the MB -

Two F*&^%$G YEARS BEFORE 9 11

You also wrote
"Or don't you remember that beautiful September morning?"

Oh , so you think Saddam was behind 911?
Well , have I got news for you deary .

Christ , the big winners in Iraq have been our real enemies , namely the Iranian Govt and the Bin Ladens of this world .

In the recent "elections" - remember them ? That's why our forces are there ? show them the wonders of democracy ?- the > secular polititicans got wiped out , in both Sunni and Shiite areas . They got stuffed . In fact in the Shiite south , even the Iranian Gov't think they're too zealot in their beliefs .

Think about that . 1,000's of lives , a trillion dollars down le toilete and even the nut jobs in power in Tehran think it's gone to far in hell holes like Basra .

Doesn't that get you thinking ? Like , even a little bit?

You also wrote:

"That last person who ever wants to fight a war is a soldier."

Exactly my ( and the paleo Cons ) point . The military were some of the biggest critics of the war in Iraq from the off . They know reality , it's Iraq war's supporters who think the problems to the world can be solved with....... stare up to the skies .....democracy

FOR FUCKS SAKE

Posted by: ewha1 at January 1, 2007 12:27 AM