Saddam is Dead

Arab TV reports Saddam Hussein was executed ten minutes ago.

U.S. military deaths in Iraq hit 2,993 today.

Saddam's death won't bring one of them back.

< Saddam Execution Countdown | Should Saddam Have Been Hanged? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    "They'll be pleased with that." (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by dutchfox on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 09:23:20 PM EST
    This all reminds me of the Live Hanging sketch in The Day Today, with the 1950's commentator in his suit:

    "And yes, yes... the lights have gone out... it's a good clean drop!"
    "There's the hanging. Well done, well done. They'll be pleased with that."

    Considering how much the US interferred and 'helped' them with their new constitution, the fact this trial was conducted under that new constitution, and the fact defence lawyers were killed, the judge changed on the orders of the Government, there's loads of reasons to disagree with it as well as the obvious moral issues.

    And it's frankly laughable to talk about Iraq's rights as it's own country after we invaded a sovereign state!

    Typo - 2,993 (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Quaker in a Basement on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 09:38:32 PM EST
    Sixty more killed than you reported. May they be the last.

    thanks, I fixed it (none / 0) (#4)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 09:52:39 PM EST
    Gabe (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 12:23:15 AM EST
    Little good can be said of Saddam Hussein except that he loved his family. The rest of his days seemed filled with bigotry, racism, sexism, immorality, and crime.

    Well just one fact to point out is that women had many more rights in Iraq than in most other nations of the region prior to the invasion. Saddam was actually quite secular when it came to social freedoms. That is why Bin Laden, et al, denounced his regime. Baghdad University was very co ed, and graduated a significant number of professionals annually during his reign.

    But we fed Saddam's megalomania with weapons, because he fought the Iranians, who had pi*ed us off with their revolution, and subsequent embassy hostage siege. We may not have created this monster, but we sure as he* nurtured him. His anthrax came from US. His nerve gas precursors could never have been allowed to be sold to him without the approval of our government. The targeting images used to drop that nerve gas were taken by our satellites. With not one bit of concern for what he was doing to his own people.

    Over the last twenty-five years, the people of Iraq have suffered a holocaust.

    It's that simple.

    They suffered political repression under a tyrant. War all through the 80's. War again in 1990. A decade of sanctions (toothpaste is on the UN list) and further bombings (google Al Amariya 2/14/91)), all culminating in an invasion and failed occupation. The failure of our government to "liberate" the people of Iraq (the subject of many future books) has led to civil war.

    Tens of millions of Iraqis have suffered from these events. From Kurds, to Shiites, and now every one. We have not solved their problem.

    We have only changed the face of their suffering.

    Good true words Che. (none / 0) (#11)
    by Edger on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 04:54:28 AM EST
    And well said. Unfortunately I think they are wasted on Gabe. But maybe some understanding will slowly dawn in someone else from them....

    Whew! (1.00 / 4) (#2)
    by ProgressiveRick on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 09:35:04 PM EST
    Glad that's over. I'll sleep better tonight knowing that for once, justice has been reached.

    Oh, I liked that comment complaining that this was done under the NEW Iraq constitution. Good luck for Saddam that it was... wonder what is worse, hanging or slowly disolving by acid?

    Bye Bye Saddam.

    Difficulty (2.00 / 4) (#6)
    by Gabriel Malor on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 10:05:17 PM EST
    Opposed as I am, generally, to the death penalty, I cannot feel enthusiastic over Saddam Hussein's death when I believe that quiet imprisonment would do. I'm even less enthused by those who've waited breathlessly for the video. But those who're questioning the process of this trial seem to be ignoring the purpose of a justice system.

    Courts are created to discover guilt and assign punishment. There are few who question Saddam Hussein's guilt. And as disgusted as we may be over a punishment of hanging, it should suprise no one that, as a common sanction in the Middle East, Saddam Hussein was fitted for a noose.

    I'm also a little skeptical at the elevation of process over consequences, coming as it does when Saddam Hussein's lawyers grasp at any straws presented to them. I don't want to belittle the need for a fair system of justice. But it's difficult to believe that this trial, as a one-time event, has imperiled the system of justice in Iraq.

    As a matter of historical moment, the death of Saddam Hussein will probably be seen as the close of terrible chapter in the history of the Middle East. Little good can be said of Saddam Hussein except that he loved his family. The rest of his days seemed filled with bigotry, racism, sexism, immorality, and crime. In the midst of our discussions about fairness and consequences and barbarism, we should recall that he was a despicable human being.


    The CLOSE of a terrible chapter??? (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Dadler on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 10:31:07 PM EST
    With all due f*cking respect, what acid have you been dropping.  How many tens and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been murdered, tortured, maimed, had their heads aerated with drills, have been displaced, in the last four years?  You have got to be young to say something as completely lacking in perspective.  This execution will do NOTHING to end any chapter except one individual's life.  Meanwhile, the murderous chaos we've initiated will continue unabated and most likely worsen.

    I mean, for heaven's sake, Saddam's chapter seems almost merry compared to the utter chaos we've brought.  More gruesom acts and none of the "stability".

    Good God, it's the end of a chapter in middle east history.  Are you aware we're supporting an unpopular dictator in Pakistan, warlords in Afghanistan, butchers in former soviet republics, and on and on???

    We continue to f*ck up and show not a whit of imagination.  We have pissed on our freedom and abused it and neglected it and taken it for granted, we stroke our tiny cocks and stuff our fat walled, and turn that all into someone else's nightmare far, far away.


    That last line should read... (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Dadler on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 10:33:37 PM EST
    "and stuff our fat wallets..."

    Regarding "stroke.." (1.00 / 3) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 09:51:08 AM EST
    Speak for yourself, dadler..

    And could you tell me about our fat wallets?? Last time I checked the Left was screaking that the war was going to bankrupt the country...

    BTW - Note the word "war." Iraq is just a battle in that war. A war you had better hope that we win.


    you miss the point again (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 11:36:40 AM EST
    we are five percent of the world and consume an immoral share of its resources and produce an even more immoral share of pollution.

    if you try to refute that, your head is in the sand.

    and if you can't see all the waste in your own house, i can't help you.  simply go to a grocery store, look at all the unnecessary packaging, as an example, then go figure out how much has to be destroyed so we can have shopping bags, or detergent boxes, or whatever.

    are you saying we can't do infinitely better than we are in terms of squandering resources?  are you saying America just isn't capable?  are you saying we couldn't, say, make people bring their own containers to put stuff in?  and that's just one little example.


    The consumpation of (none / 0) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 11:42:53 PM EST
    a material may be unwise, but is neither immoral or moral.

    And how will reducing our standard of living do anything to aid the have nots of the world. Consider the following:

    There are millions of people - actually, probably billions now - who genuinely believe that the wealth of the US was stolen from third world countries. This is one of the great perks of living a life free of the ability to think critically and do a little research. I have heard this slander repeated so many times I decided to look into some actual numbers to see if there is anything to this charge. This is a perfect example of how critical thinking allows you to see the unseen. That attitude, Google and ten minutes is all you need to shoot lies like this down in flames.

    Okay. The US Per capita income is $41,300. That of a poor, third world country -Djibouti, say -- is $2,070.

    Now it gets interesting. The US gross domestic product - the value of everything we produce in a year -- was last measured as $12 trillion, 277 billion dollars (hundreds of millions of dollars being too insignificant to count in this economy).

    The GDP of Djibouti is 1 billion, 641 million US dollars.

    A little basic arithmetic shows me that the US has a GDP 7,481 times greater than Djibouti. A 365 day year, composed of 24 hours in a day, yields 8,760 hours per year. Hang on to that for a sec.

    Now, let's suppose the U.S. went into Djibouti with the Marines, and stole every single thing that's produced there in a year...just grant the premise and say we stole every goddam thing they make. If we hauled away all of Djibouti's annual wealth, how long would it run the U.S. Economy, which is 7,481 times greater?

    Well, 8,760 hours divided by 7,481 gives you an answer of 1.17 hours. In other words, it takes the U.S. 1.17 hours to produce what Djibouti produces in a year.

    If the US really did go in and steal everything that the bottom thirty countries in the world produce, it might power the US economy for two or three days.

    Conversely, the billions and billions of dollars the US spends annually in aid, rent, etc. - plus uncounted billions more from private American charities - would supply the entire GDP of Djibouti for hundreds of years.

    Where's your Imperialism argument now?



    You're linking to the opinion (none / 0) (#17)
    by aw on Sun Dec 31, 2006 at 12:12:07 AM EST
    of a weirdo-in-arms.  You couldn't find anything better, could you?

    He's also way off topic (none / 0) (#18)
    by Edger on Sun Dec 31, 2006 at 05:55:08 AM EST
    and trolling and trying to hijack the thread.

    'one day at a time'...... etc. ;-)


    I know (none / 0) (#19)
    by aw on Sun Dec 31, 2006 at 07:20:52 AM EST
    I lose.

    Not really (none / 0) (#20)
    by Edger on Sun Dec 31, 2006 at 10:04:50 AM EST
    There are much worse ways to lose. And I don't think calling out someone who's 'all loser all the time' is one of them ;-)

    Dadler (none / 0) (#9)
    by Edger on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 10:45:07 PM EST
    Gabriel has not a clue what he's talking about. He's just preening and admiring himself over the slickness of his empty, soulless words.

    The problem is, (none / 0) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 09:45:47 AM EST
    there couldn't be a quiet imprisonment.

    I believe that quiet imprisonment would do

    Saddam was the political leader of the Baathist party, and there is still a cadre of members loyal to him killing people and formenting unrest. His death may not get rid of them, but it does remove a focal point.


    Messing up the Middle East (none / 0) (#5)
    by Edger on Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 09:57:41 PM EST
    The Arab American News
    Dearborn, Michigan
    The era of the Middle East strongman, propped up by and enforcing Western policy, appears well and truly over. His power is being replaced with rule by civil war, apparently now the American administration's favored model across the region.

    Fratricidal fighting is threatening to engulf, or already engulfing, the occupied Palestinian territories, Lebanon and Iraq. Both Syria and Iran could soon be next, torn apart by attacks Israel is reportedly planning on behalf of the U.S. The reverberations would likely consume the region.

    Western politicians like to portray civil war as a consequence of the West's failure to intervene more effectively in the Middle East. Were we more engaged in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or more aggressive in opposing Syrian manipulations in Lebanon, or more hands-on in Iraq, the sectarian fighting could be prevented. The implication being, of course, that, without the West's benevolent guidance, Arab societies are incapable of dragging themselves out of their primal state of barbarity.
    The obvious question, then, is why would the U.S. want and intend civil war raging across the Middle East, apparently threatening strategic interests like oil supplies and the security of a key regional ally, Israel?
    The reason is that a chaotic and feuding Middle East, although it would be a disaster in the view of most informed observers, appears to be greatly desired by Israel and its neocon allies. They believe that the whole Middle East can be run successfully the way Israel has run its Palestinian populations inside the Occupied Territories, where religious and secular divisions have been accentuated, and inside Israel itself, where for many decades Arab citizens were "de-Palestinianized" and turned into identity-starved and quiescent Muslims, Christians, Druze and Bedouin.

    That conclusion may look foolhardy, but then again so does the White House's view that it is engaged in a "clash of civilizations" which it can win with a "war on terror."
    If we expect rational behavior from Israel or its neocon allies, more fool us.

    The Left's skreaking (none / 0) (#14)
    by jondee on Sat Dec 30, 2006 at 11:06:35 AM EST
    Leave it to the Left to start skreaking about a measly few billion a month. Hey, it's World War IV and the commies, er..radical Muslims are threatening to overrun the world.

    Braindead as Terri was.