Saddam got hung out to dry...

[unclejimbo]

Oh yes, the world is safer now... NOT!

The worst part was flipping over to CNN and hearing some right-wing nut tell us that if Saddam had complied with the UN orders, he wouldn't be swinging in the breeze right now...

GIVE ME A BREAK! He WAS complying, right up to the time we started BOMBING Iraq...

Yup, I'm a little pissed. Not because Saddam didn't deserve his fate, but because of the bullshit that is being spouted again.

Once more: There were no WMDs, there were no WMD programs since before the first Gulf War in 1991 (For the record, Donald Rumsfeld sold WMDs to Saddam in the 80s), and there was no IMMINENT THREAT to this country from Saddam Hussein. Zip, Zero, Nada.

Comments

[miwasatoshi.livejournal.com]

I think this can be encapsulated rather succinctly:

Saddam Hussein got his comeuppance, but for all the wrong reasons.

[caitlin.livejournal.com]

*SIGH* He didn't HAVE to die. That's the thing.

Now he's a lightning rod... dead or not.

Not to mention I think we surpassed 3000 US Soldiers dead in Iraq because of a needless war either yesterday or today.

World a safer place?

I. DON'T. Think. So!

C.

[miwasatoshi.livejournal.com]

Fact: Saddam Hussein, his two sons, and numerous military officers of his regime are well documented ordered the deaths of many of his own citizens, including women and children.

For this reason alone, he certainly deserved some sort of justice, and in an Islamic society, this unfortunately means death. Sorry. The pacifist "live and let live" philosophy doesn't generally play well to that audience (except for Sufis and they are regrettably few and far between).

Fiction: The United States had any legitimate casus belli in 2003 to take down the Ba'ath party structure without UN support

Fact: the statute of limitations on the invasion of Kuwait had clearly passed
Fact: Saddam was opposed to militant Islamism, as the Ba'ath party line was secular
Fact: not all of Saddam's officers were even Islamic -- Tariq Aziz was a Chaldean Christian!
Fact: WMDs were generally disposed of -- they would certainly have been used in the fighting against the coalition, as they had been certainly used against Iran during the Iran-Iraq War

Saddam Hussein can not and should not be exonerated of his crimes. On the other hand, I agree philosophically that the reasoning behind these recent events is clearly flawed, and that Bush and Company have a lot to answer for.

The recent elections were a stinging indictment, but it's a shame that our current societal structure considers lying about a blowjob a graver offense than lying about a war.

[caitlin.livejournal.com]

And what would have been wrong with handing him over to The Hague?!

Slobodan Milosevic was. Sure, he's dead now, but it was not the United States that killed him OR his family. It was a heart condition.

Oh, and the BIG problem I have with the hanging of Saddam NOW? Is that, just like the war in Iraq - which is STILL going, despite the "Major combat operations in Iraq have ended" declaration by TIIC of the US back in May of *2003* - there was a push to do it.

They could have waited until the Iraq Civil War was OVER. This will make things WORSE.

I am NOT disputing the fact that he was a brutal dictator. Far from it. The problem is that the United States HELPED him. George Sr. HELPED him. Donald Rumsfeld HELPED him. WMD? Sure, he had them in the 1980s. They were United States ISSUE. The US GOvernment PAID him even right up to the invasion of Iraq.

The United States DID NOT have to start the mess they are still currently involved in starting in March 2003.

They had Saddam in custody. WHY did they have to execute him now? What was wrong with waiting?

The Shi'ite are celebrating. I am wondering whether the Sunnis will now use the execution as cause to fight harder. Not a Civil War? Wait. It will be. (Except that it already IS)

I never said he should be exonerated for his crimes so do not go putting words into my mouth.

I just find that killing HIM on top of the 3000 US Troops who have lost their lives (reaching that milestone at the same time at the very least) to be VERY distasteful.

Why do we have to kill in order to show that killing is wrong?

C.

[unclejimbo.livejournal.com]

My issue is not about Saddam, per se, but with the coverage. Bringing up the lies that got us into this war and trying to make them true again is doing a disservice to the people of this country.

Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, but a significant portion of the population still believe he did. 12 of the 19 were Saudi, btw.

His WMDs were American made and even with his stockpiles, he didn't use them in the first Gulf War. After the Gulf War with sanctions and no fly zones over significant portions of his country, Saddam was about as dangerous to us as Canada (With Canada being more dangerous). He was a gadfly. Annoying, yes. Dangerous, no.