«

[Mighty Midget]

Discussion. And remember, by chopping off someone's head because you two don't agree only make you look like a fool and... a despot.

I just saw the news, where they said Saddam Hussein has been executed.

A lot of people will agree that he was a despot, first rate, and there is no way you can deny he was responsible for thousands of killings, BUT: Is there more to this hanging than just the "bad guy snuffs it. Hooray!"? Will Iraq become a more peaceful place because of the hanging?

As far as I've gathered, he did not have those weapons he was accused of having, even the US senate is starting to admit that seriously. The UK government seems a bit more hesitating. More and more evidence points toward the possibility that these weapons were nothing but a non-existing excuse to take military actions against the maveric.

Maveric, because in the early days Saddam was the western world's puppet to counter Iran. Without the support from especially the UK and the US governments, Saddam would never got to power in the first place. But apparently, his ego grew out of proportions and he started to bite the hands that fed him.

It hasn't been shown any link between Saddam and the 9/11. There has been shown pictures of Saddam together with Bin Laden, but not a single evidence has been uncovered that Saddam had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks. (AFAIK)

Since it was the western governments that pushed Saddam into power, and their interests remain pretty much the same, personally I'm waiting for Saddam II. It's not about stability on the streets of Baghdad, but about stability on Wall Street. If a despot is what it takes, then a despot is what the western world will allow, as long as it's a western friendly despot.

Saddam will most likely become a martyr, and as long as religion is being used as an arguement for chaos, that is not going to calm things one bit. Now that he is dead, his supporters will use that for all it's worth and fanatics who don't support Saddam will nevertheless use it in their anti-western rhetoric. Another arguement to fire another bullet. Not extremly stabelizing, if you ask me.

[Tulac]

But maybe it's better that he was hanged since who knows how much power did he actually have, and what he was capable of even from his prison cell. And I doubt this'll make situation in Iraq any worse since it can hardly get worse with more than 10 people a day dying from terrorist attacks.

[Japo]

I agree with Tulac, in order for Iraq to become even more war-torn now, the Sunni or Baathist or whatever insurgents must have been restraining themselves to this point, and they haven't. Sure, the next big blow will be claimed as vengeance for Saddam's death, but it won't be anything new, no big deal, they have already been at their maximum. What takes me to the point that although Sunnites or Baathists can stir civil war, the real danger is that Iraq should become Iran's puppet. What I guess would solve the insurgency problem, since Sunnites will be easily repressed the same way Saddam repressed Shiites. The real reason why the USA's Iraq effort has always been naive, in my opinion, is because they're advancing towards handing Iraq to the Shiite majority, and to the Irani madmen's regime.

And concerning that supposed American support for Saddam, it's always grossly exaggerated. The USA supported Iraq when it seemed that Iran would overrun it during the 80s war that Saddam had started, that was all. As a matter of fact, in that same war Iraq's arsenal was Soviet (Kalashnikov rifles, T-series tanks, Mi-24 copters, etc.) and Iran's arsenal was American (Cobra copters, etc.) dating from the Sha's era prior to the islamic revolution, when Iran was pro-Western. And that's because Saddam's greatest support had came from the USSR, but nobody knows that, and instead USA's support for the lesser evil against Iran only during the war, which was a good move in my opinion (unlike USA's present moves), has been publicited out of proportion as a long-term commitment with the Iraqi regime itself. Heck even France was more commited with Saddam, Chirac travelled to Iraq several times when he was PM and he sold Saddam a nuclear reactor which enabled him to maufacture nuclear weapons, and which Israel had to destroy.

As for the hanging, I can't agree about taking into account the utility instead of the morality. Said otherwise, the point is whether it's just or not, not whether it will increase or decrease violence --I think that won't change anyway.

[rlbell]

Saddam was a thug and despot. However, the war to depose him was just that. It had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction, nor islamist terror-- Saddam was only slighter more muslim than the pope (Hardly a poster child for seperation of church and state, he did run a secular government, in the midst of muslim theocracies of various strengths). Only his security apparatus prevented Iraq from being the target of Al-Quaida attacks.

A real source of problems in Iraq is that the US did in Iraq what they did not do to either Germany or Japan. After WWII, the allies removed the leaders from power, but left card-carrying civil servants in their jobs. All Baathists in Iraq were suddenly out of work. Transistioning to a democracy, or any form of government is much easier if you are transitioning from another government. Once you create anarchy, it is really hard to replace it with anything.

[Tulac]

The fact is that anarchy most often transforms into a totalitarian or fundametalist regime.

[Grinder]

I agree with ribell and Tulac on this. How are the Americans ever going to bring 'democracy' to a land and people whose language they don't even speak?

[Mighty Midget]

About democracy in Iraq: I really don't believe for a split second that democracy is what this is about UNLESS we're talking about democracy as a synonym for "western friendly". This definition is in fact the one used by the media and the politicans around here. Free elections are just make-up, what really matters is the country's allegiance in an "us against them" world.

About Soviet support to Iraq vs US support to Iran: These two chubbies made a tradition out of supporting different and opposing camps in various conflicts. It even happened that they swapped camps in the middle of the conflict, so that the Soviets supported a US equipped army and the US supported a Soviet equipped army. The Iranian shah was supported by the west, and I don't find it a bit supprising that Iraq ended up with Soviet weapons.

If I'm not terribly mistaken, Saddam got to power around the same time the Iranian priests made their way to the driver's seat throwing the shah out the window. These priests cannot be accused of being feverishly supportive towards the west. Who would benefit from having an anti-Iranian-priests force in the area? I add 2 and 2, and get the answer Saddam was a very convenient puppet in a political game.

About escalation or not: Libya is officially mourning Saddam's death. If someone plants the notion that the trial and execution was a stage play set up by the west, then what? I don't think we can safely say it will be such a domestic question if this divides other countries into a stronger "us against them". The countries don't even have to be arab or moslem. What about N. Korea? China? I have no idea, but I can't spot the glue here that will bond all countries closer together.

[Quintopotere]

They (US, Soviet, Iraq, Iran, everyone you think) play and will play with life of people for power and money, both with or without Saddam.
Killing him is not going to change the future of those countries, which will be exploited and devastated.
Saddam execution is just (unuseful) propaganda.

The problem is that we can talk about that horrible war, but They'll keep using people like draughtsmans. :tai:

[Havell]

The trial was a farce, and broke the Geneva convention at several points. The notion that the Iraqi people were in control is absurd, not only beucase the Iraqi government is US appointed (yes, there were elections, but the US decided who people coulds vote for) but because the US held him captive and controlled access to him during the trial.

It's just one more pointless death; among those by Saddam during his reign, during the war itself, and those that will follow.

[rlbell]

No, the US really does want a democracy in Iraq. Unlike during the Cold War, american interests will not be served by a pro-US totalitarian regime. Unfortnately, they will be hard pressed to get what they want-- a western-style, secular democracy, in a unified Iraq.

A thankless and resentful Iraq, that is otherwise a western-style democracy, would exceed american expectations. No matter what foreign policy is formulated by Iraq, if the government is not a shiite theocracy, and differences of opinion are settled by ballot, not street violence, america should be thrilled.

The whole point of regime change in Iraq was to show how well a western-style democracy can run an arab state. Anything remotely puppet-like would defeat the whole purpose.

Given how he lived, Saddam may have felt slighted if he was not worth executing, and he received more justice than he meted out.