My own sentiment has been voiced several times over on this thread, but I'll echo those who see the impotent farce of Saddam Hussein's execution simply as one more death in Iraq.

A death made ever more insignificant by every innocent Iraqi who has died/is dying/will die because of our overzealous incursion into Iraq and inept mismanagement of its prosecution at virtually every turn. Who feels safer today with Saddam dead? How many Iraqis do you suppose feel safer?

Anyone who wants to treat this as something to celebrate doesn't earn a lot of my respect either. You are playing along with a game for fools in deliberate ignorance of what we have done...and at what price we have earned this ridiculous hanging.

There was nothing gained through executing Saddam save for one more death, and an anti-climactic sense of justice for those who sought vengeance for his crimes.

That is not justice.

To think people think I am insane by suggesting that we the people should mind our own damn business. Oh well. What does a woman know? :D

how to make ham sandwiches, apparently.

The death of Saddam will do nothing to improve the lives of the Iraqi people.

Though he committed horrible crimes, I am not a believer in "eye for an eye".

In taking his life and in such a barbaric way as hanging, the people who condemn him become no better than him.

I do not feel sorry for his death because he was likely beyond redemption and to some extent deserved to die, but deep down I felt it was wrong. I do live in a country that was one of the first in Europe to abolish the death penalty so that probably makes me biased.

I also have to say that it's shameful the way the images of Saddam's death were shown on public TV and made available on the internet in full.

I agree with you little_tippler:

I was gratefully out of touch will all media output this weekend but I was appalled to see even the very brief clip of his execution that I finally did see and even more disgusted at how it has been paraded around for us all. It seems that the world has finally abandoned grace for good. And apparently we have all decided that the terrorist indulgence of morbid voyeurism makes for good television copy.

No it isn't. I firmly believe that if the government is gonna condone an execution, they should HAVE to show it on TV. Maybe if more people saw the barbarism that is legalized murder, they'd get tired of it, and demand that we put a stop to it.

That's the same reason we absolutely SHOULD show the destroyed bodies of our dead soldiers. Sure, it's shocking and very uncomfortable to watch. But maybe if people saw that every damn day on the TV they wouldn't be so eager to support getting into another war. I'm willing to sacrifice the supposed dignity of a few dead people in order to save thousands of lives.

not to derail, it'd just be nice to have the news not be so god damned depressing all the time, yes, ok, lets report about some child abuse, a house fire, a murder, a hit and run on someone riding thier bike, oh hey, here's some f'n snow for you bastards too!

yeah, screw that. news is crap.

I completely understand your point of view but I believe the only outcome of it would be that people would only become more enured and unaffected by images of death and less reflective about the concepts of war and execution. Anything shown often enough on television becomes something no longer of reality. It removes the watcher from real experience. Or maybe I'm just no longer convinced of mankind's innate tendency to move away from barbarism.

I think a large problem is the psychological influence of the way news is presented to us. Newcasters are taught to try to remain mostly "neutral"

They can talk about baby cannibalism for all it matters to them, and they still do it with this absurd "it's just the news" tone of voice.

If anything desensitizes people, its that. I mean you grow up listening to these people and hell, if they are so calm, everything must be ok, right?

So after listening to these people talk about war, about terrorist attacks, about economic issues, about things which are supposed to test our very moral beliefs of life and death, day in , day out, year after year, "it's just the news". I mean, you start off well enough, you might actually care about the news, but you know, one day you might just be a little withdrawn, "well theres nothing I could have done about that" and it's all downhill, apathy sets in.

THAT is what pisses me off, and it'll never change because no station will get a real personality presenting the news.
Likewise, they really can't either since it would imply that because thier newscasters feel or think a certain way, it's being imposed upon thier viewers.

meh. Ok, i'm done ranting. I'll shush now.

Well, look back at the vietnam war. People were pretty quiet about it here at home until the TV started showing the bodybags being unloaded at the airforce bases. Then the protestors started getting very loud indeed.

I agree that news is largely crap (take notes, since I work in news) but not for the reasons you say. If anything the news needs to be more depressing. There's a lot of depressing shit happening right now. We just killed our 3,000th soldier in Iraq. The economy is in the toilet (I don't care what Bush says, just go down to your local Salvation Army and ask them how much demand for the food shelf has increased). A regional war is about to break out in the middle east. Bush is threatening to embroil us in yet another war (Iran). People are dying daily because they can't afford treatments that are available and could save their lives. And those are just a few examples of the crap that's going on in the world.

Yet what do we see on the nightly news? People diving into a frozen lake for fun on January 1st, christmas lights, a pet that does some cool trick, the first baby of the year, the last baby of last year, a man-on-the-street interview about new years resolutions, kids visiting Santa at the mall, last minute christmas shopping on the 24th, the grand opening of a donut shop, and other inane bullshit that's pushing the real issues right off the broadcast. And just so you know, all of those examples are stories I worked on in the last month, and I guarantee that someone at just about every station in the country did the same thing.

News is depressing? Yep, it sure is, because a lot of it just plain isn't news anymore.

Of course the flip side of that problem is that the American people feel they have a god given right to be happy 100% of the time. If something makes them unhappy, rather than trying to change it, they often sweep it under the rug. If the news is depressing then get the hell out there and make a difference - -change that situation so we have something good to report for once. But no, that's not the American way. The American way is to blame the news for reporting things we don't like.


And yet people gave Dan Rather shit about how "unprofessional" he was because he broke into tears after 9/11 on Letterman.

Now here we can come to an agreement I think. See, I think this forced neutrality in journalism is stupid (and that's made me rather a pariah amongst many of my colleagues). In the first place, who the hell do we think we're fooling. Of course we have opinions. We're humans, not robots.

We should absolutely report all sides of an issue, but I frankly don't see anything wrong with a commentary section of the broadcast - provided you clearly label it as commentary.

People are giving Katie Couric a lot of crap for the opinion section of her newscast. Frankly I think that's just about the only thing she's done right since she took the anchor chair.

Let's not forget that it was Murrow's commentary that took down Joe McCarthy and his communist witch hunt. It was Cronkite's commentary that finally convinced the president that America was not behind the Vietnam war. He began shutting it down almost immediately. Yet today we shy away from commentary. Oh my god somebody might think we're biased! So the hell what? So we're biased. If we're biased we probably have a damn good reason for it.

Now, in order to do this right we have to move journalism back to the way it was under Murrow and Cronkite. Cronkite didn't just sit at his anchor desk pontificating on a war he'd never visited. He went over to Vietnam, several times, and the last time he traveled all over the country (not just where the military wanted him to go) to see for himself what was going on, then prepared reports on it, and THEN told us what he thought.

Today we have "embedded" journalists running around in Iraq, going only where the military wants them, seeing only what the military wants them to see. So frankly we're not qualified to give you a commentary on how the Iraq war is going. We don't see what's really happening. We need another Cronkite to come in, tour the country on his own, see what's going on, and tell us about it.

But that would cost money and news is decidedly for-profit now. We get better ratings by interviewing last night's American Idol loser and telling you about Britney Spears not wearing panties.

It all boils down to corporate ownership. We've let 5 major corporations own the majority of the media outlets in this country. GE doesn't give a crap about good journalism, all they want to see is huge profits coming in from ALL their divisions. It's a lot more expensive to send a reporter to Iraq on his own (Rather than being cared for and fed by the military) than it is to get paparazzi video of celebrities without underwear.

What's the solution? Break up the journalistic monopolies. 5 megacorporations should not be dictating what we see on the news each night. Democracy cannot survive without a feisty and independent press acting as a watchdog to government.

We do that, and stop insisting that news rake in 30% profits every year, and we'll start to see some genuinely good changes not just in journalism, but in the rest of the country as officials realize they're now being watched.

I see your point, Shauk, but if you take away neutrality with the news, then people aren't going to be cool with that either. We already feel that the media is biased, how are we going to feel if the news presenter appears more passionate about one murder victim than another? We'll decide that they are prejudiced, either by race, class, social status, etc. The only option is neutrality.

Anyway, here in England, there are people presenting the 'news' in less neutral terms - but they are seen more as political commentary and / or propaganda (either for or against mainstream media).

But I agree on the desensitization. It's horrible, makes us less human.

I am amused at the fact that with all of the valid, important things in the world to bitch about, people are spending their time complaining about the death of Saddam Hussien.

:rolleyes:

Well, if you had any talent for detecting the not-so-subtle you'd see that no one here is "complaining about the death of Saddam Hussein."

It's hardly our only complaint. The root of the complaint is in the failed war in Iraq, and I'd say that's a valid complaint considering that it's causing the deaths of tens to hundreds of thousands of people, including military forces from our home countries, and is bankrupting the US government and is creating global instability. It's kinda a big deal.

So apparently the guy who recorded it on his cell phone has been arrested.

Is that really the right guy to punish? The whole situation was chaotic, and probably deserves criticism, and as such I doubt that the rules about recording the event were made clear to all involved. I sure didn't see a "No Flash Photography" sign posted anywhere in the video.

Bah. I think if people would just think things through for all of 30 seconds, things like this could be avoided. I'm against the death penalty, but if you're going to execute someone like Saddam, at least have it be an organized, non-chaotic event.

Sorry but I have to state my point of view here. The death penalty serves a distinct purpose and it is not to torture the victim. The purpose of the death penalty is that it gets people who will not ever be a functioning part of society of the street permanently. Think of psychopathic murders here. The death penalty removes these people from society because there is no other viable way to do so. Locking someone up for the rest of their life is not cheap by any means. Think about it, all of the people in jails are being supported by the government. The death penalty serves as a cost effective, efficient way to deal with those that can never be part of society.

At least, this is how it is intended. Is it 100% fool proof? No, nothing truly is.

First of all, you took willravel's comment out of context.

Secondly, the death penalty is not the only viable option. Talk to any therapist about prevention methods, and Second Step programs.

Although I am decidedly opposed to the death penalty, largely due to a tainted judicial system, I will shed not one tear for poor Sadaam.

I will say that I believe his trial was nothing more than a sham, and that he was a "dead man" from the moment he was drug from his spider hole. The whole thing was just a huge joke.

So why should we be at all surprised to discover that his "execution" more closely resembled a public lynching than a state sponsored execution? Even if Sadaam didn't deserve anything more dignified than what he got...the rest of the world did. That was just pathetic.

If you look at the statistics, the death penalty is NOT more cost effective. In fact, studies conducted in state after state after state that practices the death penalty have determined that it costs the taxpayer millions of dollars more per year to invest in the death penalty system of jurisprudence.

It costs so much more because we have that whole hurry up and appeal bull crap.

Oh, I see. So the solution is only to kill them faster? Leaving the system open to even more incompetence and injustice than it has exhibited before? Making the system even more obviously slanted in favor of those who can afford to provide themselves with a superior defense in court?

With as incriminating as DNA evidence is these days I hardly find that the case. Then again, OJ got off.

Maybe Saddam was innocent.

Iraqis arrest men over Saddam hanging video

There is not always DNA evidence. What then?

Eye witnesses, probable cause, evidence take your pick.

I still stand behind the adopt-a-terrorist movement. People who think we treat war prisoners badly or are terribly unjust should adopt one. Show them the proper way to live. Assuming they dont kill their adoptive families. If they do we should turn our other cheek though. They didnt know any better.

Well said.

I like the new avatar, btw.

Maybe an idea more plausible than your adopt-a-terrorist movement is for those who whole heartedly support the death penalty to simply stop whining about how many of their precious tax pennies are going to practice it in a way befitting of the United States of America.

I'll stand behind that idea.





Sorry to take the thread so far off track. I'm aware. I stop.

Have you ever been electrocuted? Or have you ever suffocated by poison gas? Have you ever been hung? I'd call each of those torture, and there are humaine ways to end people's lives. Is the purpous torture? The answer of that lies in this simple fact: there are no steps taken to ensure that the condemned will feel tremendous pain and suffering immediatally before death.
There are rarely trained psychologists on the juries that sentence people to death. Without very specific and intense training, how can one really know beyond a shadow of a doubt that someone cannot be reintegrated after years of therepy? Your answer to that would probably be dollars and cents, which I find facinating. Yes, it is cheap to kill people. It's also cheaper to simply drop biological weapons on the Middle East and then take their oil free of charge, so why don't we do that? Simple: morality. It's immoral to kill, espically in a system that is imperfect. Would you want to live in a country that has executed innocent people? Are you really able to excuse that with a simple, "mistakes are made, so be it" type of statement?

Yes, saving money is important...but not at the cost of justice and what we know is right.
And there we have it; the "life isn't fair" excuse. That's the same excuse used all around the world to excuse injustice. Like, cadre, is as fair as we make it. If we choose to do everything we can to make life fair, then we can succede. If we simply roll over and accept that life isn't fair, then life won't be fair.

If you had your eyes open you'd realize they were. English as a second language perhaps?

What's wrong with a complaint? I'd prefer a debate as opposed to staying silent for the sake of silence.

Eye witnesses, probable cause, evidence take your pick.

If we don't kill a "terrorist" we must bring one into our homes? I think you skipped a few steps.

You will hear no argument from me that the Iraq war was ill concieved and terribly executed, but if anything good has come from it, it is the death of Saddam. At this point you have to take what you can get from that cluster-fuck.

People responsible for crimes such as his should not have any comforts, including the drawing of breath.

I'm not advocating silence, just pointing out misplaced sympathy.

I haven't seen anyone here complaining or lamenting the death of Saddam Hussein. What I see are more complex arguments about the war and about the death penalty as spurred by the execution of Saddam Hussein. Capice?

We aren't sympathizing, just pointing out the uselessness of the situation.

A. Let's raise the civility level here.

B. The thread, as I recall was about the execution of one man...Sadaam Husein. Therefore, let's keep the posts relevent to this one single instance. Should Sadaam have been executed? Should he have hung, or was that to good for him? Maybe you feel that he didn't have it coming. Discuss that. How is this going to impact Iraq, the Iraqi government, the Iraqi people? Will the violence escalate or decrease?

Let's save the death penalty rhetoric for another thread. I seem to recall a few of them. Or start a new one...it's probably been awhile.

Saddam should not have been executed, but forced to help build a hospital or something of the like. He deserved to be brough to justice, but hanging, or any death penalty for that matter, is an act of vengeance, not justice. I doubt this will do anything to decrease the level of violence in the ME if not help intensify it.

the only possible good to have been accomplished through the execution would have been to establish some degree of legitimacy for the rickety american proxy pseudo-government that is presently in power.

that the trial was a debacle and the american proxy-pseudo-government made truly grotesque theater out of the execution accomplishes precisely the opposite of that possible good.

they fucked it up so completely that even the bush people find it necessary to distance themselves from the execution...look at the statements from the white house this afternoon: "um..we would have done it differently..."
EVEN THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION, those virtuosii in the denial of reality, are distancing themselves from it.


the death of saddam hussein was a foregone conclusion: any question of justice being served by it was ruled out from the beginning. it was going to be theater no matter what: and within that there is good theater and bad theater.
and this was very very bad theater.

like bor said above, the americans should not have bothered with the show trial.
that too was very very bad theater.
the americans should not have administered that trial. it was not in their interest to administer the trial. there is no good logic behind it: except that the americans could kill hussein and an international body would not and the americans could imagine that the war itself was not so illegitimate that a trial growing out of it could not go forward without putting the war itself on trial: and international body would probably not have done that.

another way: in any other legal scenario, any one with any legitimacy to it,
regardless of WHAT saddam hussein did while in power, the actions that resulted in his being brought to trial in the first place were so problematic that he probably would have been acquitted.

so for the americans, all other options were foreclosed. and with that out of the window went any possible advantage to putting him on trial at all. and since everone knows, everyone knew at the time that his death was a foregone conclusion, the americans probably should have simply "found him dead."--it would have been better for them, in theatrical terms. but no. like everything else about this ridiculous farce of a war, the american administration thought it through half way, and then, having thought it out half way, they proceeded to fuck up. it woud be amazing were it not by now so routine.

of course, we all simply accept it.
and meanwhile, of course, thousands of people continue to die.

nothing good came of this at all.
nothing.
personally, i think such bizarre exultation as has happened in this thread is rooted in denial. you cant look at the unbelievable fiasco that this war has become, you cant process it, so you focus on the tiny bits and break out the champagne. and why not? it's certainly easier than thinking about what's going on, and who doesnt sometimes like having a glass or 7 of a fine beverage?
but you're better off watching cartoons.
because, in a kind of foul way, you already are.

Me trying to impose my own views and thoughts on the Iraqis, who are (in theory at least) a sovereign people, seems pointless. It's their country, and they can run it as they see fit.

However, the "too good for him" comment is too good for me to pass up. I think that they should have taken a lesson from the 16th Century Russians. After Ivan IV's (AKA The Terrible) son Feodor died, there was no heir and a gigantic power vacuum. After a few years of squalor, a man appeared out of the Polish frontier claiming to be Ivan's dead son, Dmitri (who officially died at his own hand when he had an epileptic fit while playing with a knife and slit his own throat). In actuality, the guy was most likely a defrocked priest from Poland and looked nothing like Dmitri.

With the backing of the Poles, Dmitri ascended the throne and married the daughter of the Patriarch of Kiev (I think). After about a year, the Russians grew tired of being ruled by the Poles and the nobility revolted, killing Dmitri in pretty dramatic swordfight in the Kremin.

Here's my favorite story in all of Russian history - they took his body and had it drawn and quartered (tied his limbs to 4 separate horses and ran them off in different directions). They took those pieces and burned them in a fire. Then they loaded the ashes in a cannon and shot them off towards Poland. There's debatable historical evidence that it actually happened this way, but it's such a great story that I kind of hope that it did.

Unless the Iraqis cremate Saddam and fire him off toward Tikrit or wherever, this is just another hanging.

Hopefully that story will make you smile at least a little and bring a little of the civility BOR is talking about back to this thread. Until then, I'm staying away.

whatever happened in 16th century russia does not legitimise nor have anything to do with saddams execution.

i have just seen the video, and as much as i despised saddam, i think that the whole thing was mishandled and i felt a sense of injustice.

i can speak arabic, so i understood what was said on the video. some of you may have seen a translation of the video, but if you are not an arab or muslim, the context of what was said cant be understood. regardless of whether you think he should have been hanged, taking a life deserves respect. gloating and gleefully partaking in exchanges while he is on the gallows is a shameful act.

the fact that the iraqi givernment let him be lynched...yes lynched by a mob of shiite militia men does no favours for the puppet iraqi government nor for the occupiers of iraq.

Its now quite clear that the iraqi government is riddled with moqtada's men, and that at the drop of a hat moqtadas men will turn on the puppet government and put a shiite militiaman in power after ousting whatever puppet leader the US puts in next.

Morals are all relative, you believe that it is wrong to kill people like this but my morals are not the same. Maybe this is because I was raised without a religion but I would like to think not. Thus I don't believe that you can use morals as an arguement here, seeing as everyone's are different. It seems to me that years of research has said that psychopaths and sociopaths can rarely be "cured" but I understand that the research into this is growing and maybe it will change. Maybe the rules should be tightened on who can be sentanced to death and who cannot, I'm not against that. I'm not against changing the methods either because some of them are not as humane as others (by the way, I've been electrocuted many times in my life, doesn't really scare me anymore but I haven't gotten hurt by it either). Also, I don't think morality is what is keeping us from bombing the Middle East to take all their oil anyways, I'd say that is more political than anything else.

I haven't done any research on this in more than four years so if the money thing is wrong then I'm sorry but I find that kind of hard to believe.

As far as the method, doesn't electrocution just stop the heart? I believe it's usually one charge and not something that builds up so technically the person should not even feel it. Hanging is the same, there is rarely physical pain because it simply breaks the neck. Gassing I don't know about. Then there's lethal injection which is actually a series of injections, first killing the nervous system, stopping the breathing and then stopping the heart (don't quote me, this may be wrong). I don't think this would cause any pain do you?

I agree with this. The circumstances of his execution were reprehensible. But what did we really expect from the Iraqis? They have made a habit of fucking up far simpler tasks than a mere hanging.

I found it telling that as a Baathist, his last comment was "this is the bravery of arab men?" (emphasis supplied by moi)

A mea culpa perhaps?

For .1-15 seconds they feel every muscle in their body tense to the point of breaking while feeling 2,000 volts melt them from the inside until they lose conscienceness or their heart stops, if nothing goes wrong.

Seriously though, this thread is about Saddam's hanging, not the death penalty. As BOR said, make a new thread.

huh--i would have thought that the idea of kingship--that the person of the king WAS the unity of the people WAS the unity of the state, such as it was before (say, for simplicity's sake) the french revolution...and the notion of political legitimacy that operates now, in the context of the modern nation-state (procedural legitimacy)...would be understood as different, so that the nice story about dismemberment and cremation and a cannon shot toward poland would be a kind of non-sequitor.

but it is a cool story, and i am glad i know it now, and so i guess the question of relevance at one level (this thread, this or any conversation about the execution of saddam hussein no matter what you think of it) is supplanted by another notion of relevance (because it is not every day you get a cool story like that....)


but then, if you start thinking about it more, things begin to get creepy.
and then, a little later, they stop making sense.
so the_jazz: what are you actually saying with that post?

are you saying that the iraqi people in 2007 are like the heroic europeans of the 17th century, like there is a single Objective History, the furthest end of which is occupied by White People and relative to which everyone else can be understood---you simply ascribe to them one or another position along that objective History----as if all humanity simply repeats that one Objective History as they develop toward the Amazing 2007 occupied by those Terrifically Sophisticated White People?

or not?

i am confused.
please help.

How this thread has grown! What myriad opinions and emotions; disagreement and outright spite. I think we might pause and ask ourselves if this guy ever was worth so much bother?

Points taken, okay.

My dear good sirs and madams, it is in my humble opinion that Saddam should have been executed. Hanging was entirely too good for the chap. Instead I believe he and Bush should have been locked in a room together to knock each other off with their bare hands. That having been done, displaying both of their heads on pikes would have made me feel sufficiently safe. Anything less would be.... uncivilized. Have it coming? All that and more I assure you he should have received in my mind. As for the impact on Iraq? As far as I am concerned it can become a glass parking lot. Our noses are far too distended into other countries.

debaser, his last comment wasnt 'this is the bravery of arab men'?

ive found this website with the translation and text of what was said on the video..its pretty accurate from what ive seen of the tape.. his last words are quite clear and were actually the recital of the 'proclamation of faith' also known as the 'shahada' bearing witness in the Oneness of God, before the trap door was flung open.

heres the link
http://www.rightsided.org/index.php/...-and-analysis/

I stand corrected.

His last words were "I bear witness ..." then he was dropped.

Just prior to that though, in response to the heckeling, he made the comment I alluded to above.

I read the translation you linked to, but I disagree with it somewhat. Granted my Arabic is pretty tawdry, but the reference was not to their manhood. I'll try to find a transcript and look it over, but from listening to it that is what I got...


EDIT: I found a subtitled video from CNN:

Hanging video with CNN subtitles

I think Hussein being hanged in his own execution chamber is a reasonable facsimile of justice. It was better than a lot of his victims got, but it's close enough. The trial and to a lesser extent the execution were not exactly exemplary but considering where it's taking place, it was as good as can be expected IMO, and it's not like the outcome was ever in doubt.

Roach,

My point is that we're really all far too close to the event to make any actual sense of it. If the Iraqis had fired Saddam off toward Tikrit (or wherever), the international hullaballoo would be deafening. We'd be talking about desecration of the dead and lots of other nasty things that none of us want to really think that humans are capable of.

If the Legend of the False Dmitri is true, it's a horrific scene full of death, dismemberment and utter warfare. It's a charming anecdote at parties these days, but the real thing would be something that no one here, pro- or anti- death penalty alike, would ever want to have to watch.

In 400 years, the death of Saddam may be the same. Regardless of whether or not anyone here thinks my little distraction from the vitriol being hurled around is relavent, history will be the ultimate judge. We're all simply witnesses and impotent ones at that.

Our noses have become too large. Bush would've lost even if it was a very large room and he could have run away as much as he liked.I feel, Feel, FEEL for Iraq and for the stupid mess we have caused.
Please let's not make glass parking lots anywhere.
Now, glass housing structures in the desert! THAT MIGHT WORK! Housing in the desert that kept in the humidity and there are the "ugly bags of mostly-water" staying warm yet comfortable all the time.
Can we save the soldiers?

Here is more detailed and elaborate background. IMO, no good will come of this for the US, Iraq, or the region. Saddam appears to have died as he lived....and the answer to the question, "was Iraq the way Iraq was, because Saddam was the way Saddam was....or..." is answered. Gertrude Bell answered that question back in 1920:
So.....let's compare where the reagion was on Sept. 12, 2001. The U.S. was pursuing one man, in Afghanistan....and sicx months before, the Taleban were given $70 million from the U.S., according to Colin Poweel, to compensate Afghani opium farmers after the Taleban eliminated the opium crop. The women wore burkhas, and Afghanistan was subject to sharia law.

Iran was hemmed in by it's Taleban enemy in Afghanistan, and by the weakened Saddam....still perceived by Iran, and the world as an enemy that contained his neighbors' (Iran) ambition and aggression.

The Kurds, independent under the protection of the 10 years old, "no fly zone", enjoyed autonomy, and were an irritant to Turkey, but no more so than when Saddam controlled the region. Turkey could still consider the Kurdish province to be part of Iraq, and there was no need to pre-empt Kurdish ambitions for independence. The 1920 status quo in the region....the checks and balances of Sunni rule in Iraq, via Saddam, were just as Winston Churchill and Gertrude Bell had planned, 81 years before.....

The US treasury debt was $5.7 trillion, and US military and intelligence annual spending was under $350 billion, and the federal budget was balanced.

All of the above has been upset, the Afghan opium crop is huge, US debt and spending is out of control, the US "on the ground" military is overextended on two fronts, undermanned and wearing out it's equipment. The Taleban are restablishing their rule in Afghanistan, the women still wear burkhas, and the sharia is the law.

Iran is enjoying it's new dominance of the region, and the shi'a of Iraq are united with Iran. The Kurds are making the Turks nervous, and the Saudis warn that they will not tolerate the crushing of their Sunni brothers in Iraq.

Saddam's execution is just one more setback in a series of blunders and mistakes made by the US.....

....and here's the hope of US leadership of the future:

man, I want off this planet before you weird human people get me killed.

I don't care where you're from or your nationality, I just look at all this ritual with disgust. develop values and morals and then use them as an excuse for violence, whats the point?


This execution solved nothing except to appeal to the team complex of competitiveness that americans seem to have "we're number 1!" so they can thump themselves on the chest and revel in thier entitlement of being happy about something, even at the expense of another. Saddam wasn't right, but then again, who is?

Dlishs!

Shauk, how're you posting here if you're not human?

#1 has been ?able since computers came around.

I've been begging you to forget about this as a thing: As a thing it just happened and didn't mean that much. Remember he was in captivity long before he died...would we be talking about it so much if, say, he'd died with Ms. Braun in the bunker (or did he?).
Any "celebration" of the news paled beside this witness to the fact that people were actually willing to argue about it. OMG, lightly using the term.

I was in no way trying to legitimize the execution. That's something that only the Iraqi's can do.

However, I think you're wrong that my anecdote has nothing to do with what we saw. It's the case of a foreign power of a different religious bent (Catholic vs. Orthodox) seizing control of a country coupled with an act of regicide by the "natives" (for lack of a better term). Make no mistake about it, any autocrat or dictator is a de facto king. The trappings may be different but the end result is the same.

Regardless, the historians are going to be the ultimate judge. Those that will come after us have the benefit of hindsight to determine whether or not our actions were just.

Lady Sage, I think that it's very interesting that you can suggest putting Saddam's head on a pike and killing every man, woman and child in Iraq in nuclear fire. I've probably misinterpreted something, so I'm a little confused on how you can reconcile your distaste for our hyper-aggresive (in my mind) foreign policy and the execution of a (former) world leader. The two issues seem inextricably tied together to me.

host, other than pointing out what a mess the US is in, I really don't get the point of your post.

1 asshole less on the planet... but not a problem solved ...

The point was that our leadership was stupid enough to destroy he power balance in Iran's locale. It was much more in the interests of the US to continue to prop Saddam up, than to invade, capture, and kill him. It's bankrupted us financially, strategically and morally. Saddam had it right, if he called his executioners "Persian midgets".....that is an accurate description of who the Iraqi Shi'a are, now.

Bush recently sent a US Navy armada into the Persian gulf, and he did not pull the trigger against Iran. The US has no strategy, and few allies. Since 9/11 , the US has been executing itself. So much influence and money squandered. The biggest loser on the gallows the other day in Iraq, was not Saddam. He went out wiht his head held high. He's gone, and so is our future as a leader among nations. and as an unrivaled financial and military power. Bush inserted the US into an 1100 year old stalemate of muslims fighting among themselves...the description I posted help illustrate what a horror show already existed between different Arab and Persian muslim sects. They neutralized each other, and now our leadership inserted us into the "fray". Pathetic and tragic.

When is the death of another human being ever a good thing?

I think this hanging will increase attacks on Americans by Iraqis.

Jonathan

Too bad the Bush Family has killed more Iraqis than Hussein ever did.
But don't let the numbers bother your conscience any. Two wrongs make a Christian Right.

Jonathan

So are you saying that Bush should be killed if he signed an execution order and then later the person's DNA proved they did not do it ?

Jonathan

The towers were actually originally designed to withstand an airplane crash to the size of a metroliner however to save cost the architect, Yamasaki were forced to re-direct the attention and money focus to other areas of construction in the building. Had it not been for his design, the buildings would of likely toppled over causing more death and destruction. Damn Americans always trying to save money and cut quality...
The towers will not ever be rebuilt...Instead I believe four or five shorter differently shaped towers will be erected on the sites to comemorate the event. They will be placed surrounded by a park or grassy area from what we were shown in the plans.
The architect chosen for this task was Daniel liberskind (this is from what I remember from class, pretty sure it was him though. . (Someone paid attention in class! Hooray Architecture!)
Just some info...the wound will be reclosed supposedly by 2010 at the latest.
The new plans take alot of time...
If anyone was interested.
I think Sadam being hanged is good. It won't heal alot fo things...but its a damn good start in my book. Atleast he won't be able to be used as a figurehead anymore...
I hope we prevail in the war.

Oh, I know....haha. With the amount of research I've done into that damn day, I could write 4 or 5 books.
Yes, but the money has been there to rebuild the replacements for the gaping hole that exists there now for at least 5 years. Nothing has been done. The plans have been finished for at least 4 years. It's still a big open hole, staring back at us as if to say, "See what happens?"

He was killed by hanging. Reminiscant of the old west. Goes along with the cowboy persona of the US president.
Yes, he did bad things. I am not happy that he was killed. Especially in a manner that is so barbaric. I doubt his death will have any great effect on the people of Iraq.

But apparently it is having a great effect on people elsewhere in the middle east.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/06/wo...ld&oref=slogin

Downward spirals suck.

even though i have a conflict with killing, the manner he was killed is actually fairly humane, as long as he fell far enough, and the noose was in the right place (to the left or right of the head), the neck would snap, the spinal cord would be severed, and the heart would stop, death would occur quickly with little pain. unlike electrocution, lethal injection, and all the other forms of execution.

I dunno', being hanged sounds pretty painful to me. I'd rather the lethal injection, as they put you to sleep first.

I don't have anything to say about (this former guy's) execution/assassination/death thing anymore. But I'd like to agree with mixedmedia again: "Downward spirals suck."
Wouldn't it be refreshing to find a visionary who could draw us towards an upward spiral?
The length of time that that might take could well outlive even this martyr business.

damn, sucks to be him...

Maybe there is somebody who could do it himself, or persuade the rest of us to "listen up":....

I stumbled upon him yesterday....I posted some interviews and articles he has written. He had the following to say, in the weeks immediately before the March, 2003, US invasion of Iraq.

In hindsight, his observations and predictions seem remarkably prescient, and he seems pessimistic about the trend that many in the US are embracing now....

War is not zen!
Saddam, in a way I wish you might rest in peace, in another I wish you might burn in hell. Realistically, though, I wish you nothingness as there you are.

Zen is simply a perspective. Looking at the war, or any war, from a zen prespective can bring to light new truths, and the importance of those truths should not be understated.

i just saw the NEW video of saddam in the morgue..he had a gaping wound to his neck and bruising to his face. is this something that is common in hangings? or did he cop a beating after he was pulled from the gallows?

Would it be possible for you to post a link to that? Or PM me it?

i would assume that the damage was caused by the hanging, it's probably where his spine protruded from his neck on impact, but sunk back in when he was placed on the gurney and had his neck straightened out.

is he still dead?

I think so, but his mustache has spotted alive and well in Argentina.

Worse.

He's undead.

worse, he's an undead martyr

dlishs makes my mouth water. Are bruises avaiable after our hearts stop beating? TMI, & what if? If he was dead it didn't hurt.

It depends
 

It depends if you are a baathist or a shiite.

cant you be neither?

You are if you're dead.

Is anybody knowledgable about SH's beliefs regarding the afterlife? I don't mean whatever he professed...

I've found an excellent analysis of the (bad parts) of the Iraq War. This is told mostly from one side but the arguments of the other side are covered. I don't have enough time to read everything, but I found an hour to listen to this.

http://media.libsyn.com/media/infide...r_Worth_It.mp3

Hard to argue with what's said there.