Dec 29 2006
The Hanging Of Saddam Hussein
Major Update: It is done – good riddance Saddam. May you face in death the millions of people you brutally murdered over your pathetic lifetime. Some thoughts. Saddam’s passing will lift a cloud from Iraq and its new government and give the democratic government some serious street credibility. The liberal left has taken a huge hit if watching CNN and Alan Colmes on Fox is any indication. Colmes was obsessed with the idea Saddam would be a hero to some. I guess he just missed all the holocaust denials and those who, to this day, praise and pray for the return of Hitler and Stalin. Sad, but these pathetic humans do exist. And Peter Arnaut was on CNN claiming Saddam was senile and the only reason we took Iraq was his sons did not have his military genius. America is going to be watching the Democrats – and if the liberal media is any indication there is a good chance they will blow this. Saddam’s shadow was felt here in the US most of my life – and all of my adult life. His passing was also felt a half a world away here in the US. One can only imagine the power of the impact in Iraq.
Update: Keep an eye on the reporting from Iraq by Iraq The Model as event unfold with Saddam’s hanging. – end update
All I have to say on the matter is good riddence, and the world is a much better place. But I will explain why I have no pity for Hussein. He had no pity for anyone else. No one should forget how he came to power – as a murderous thug. His ascendecy over Iraq began with a staged-crafted purge of his political enemies:
He knew when to kill his enemies and when to compromise them. In the purge that followed Saddam’s final assumption of the presidency, for example, ranking members of government were arrested not in secrecy, but at public meetings. And then their colleagues — ministers and party leaders — were ordered to make up the firing squads. They were made part of the terror.
If you have ever seen the video of this act it is chilling to the bone. Purging his enemies was a special gift of Saddam’s. He started two major wars with Iran and Kuwait resulting in the deaths of millions. But his signature atrocity against humanity was the gassing of his own people. I find myself feeling less for this animal than I would an actual animal dying. The man was brutal, insane and dangerous. It was only a matter of time before he was able to obtain the WMDs he needed to ravage this world. While the lefties will defend Saddam as a saint before crediting Bush with removing one of history’s most evil figures, that just illustrates how deranged the left is in this country. They see Bush as worst than Saddam. Thankfully that warped view of reality is held only by a petty minority. Anyone who opines for Saddam is crazy or sick. The rape rooms and children’s torture chambers are closed, as are the mass graves of his victims. The world is a much better place now.
Update: The best I have seen on this matter in the Blogosphere is, not surprisingly, by Rick Moran. As usual he and I see things very much the same way. He just says it better.
Roonent1
“To all you GW bashers here in the US, around the world and HERE whom are upset because your pet project has not been fulfilled, this would have never happened if not for the courage of GW! You all lose! Thank you GW, you win! Thank you American soldiers, you win.”
Bet you can’t find one US soldier who believes the killing of Saddam
constitutes “winning.” But thanks for only posting your delusions
twice on this thread.
L
World War I (1914–1918)
Imperial, territorial, and economic rivalries led to the “Great War†between the Central Powers (Austria-Hungary, Germany, Bulgaria, and Turkey) and the Allies (U.S., Britain, France, RUSSIA, Belgium, Serbia, Greece, Romania, Montenegro, Portugal, Italy, and Japan). About 10 million combatants killed, 20 million wounded.
Ken,
Those are U.S. companies. I am still waiting to see gov’t approval of WEAPONIZED WMD’s going to Iraq from the U.S., not dual use stuff.
http://daoureport.salon.com/
here’s one US soldier who doesn’t feel like a “winner” about Saddam’s
execution. There are myriad others.
Ken,
So you take the exception and make it the rule.
That’s like me digging up some liberals who support the war and saying they all do or saying it’s evidence that we should have invaded.
Whats your point?
Mark78
Yeah, the companies defied the government-and Bush told the truth about the WMDs. The paste gives an exhaustive description of US government involvement in arming Saddam.
Not the exception, Markie. TheFeb 2006 Zogby Poll of US soldiers in Iraq clearly showed 72% said they should be removed if Iraq was not pacified by this month.
Zogby? Puhleeze.
http://www.upi.com/archive/view.php?archive=1&StoryID=20030410-070214-6557r
More on US dirty hands collaboration with Saddam
http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20061229-101021-1168r
90% of Iraqis say country better off under Saddam!
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/PAR048762.htm
As Strata-sheep boast US soldiers realize all too well they are losing.
Time for this again:
“It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.”
Theodore Roosevelt, “Citizenship in a Republic,”Speech at the Sorbonne, Paris, April 23, 1910
And Ken, despite your attempted insults, you still have not answered my question regarding our alliance with Saddam against Iran:
So what?
http://www.airforcetimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2449372.php
Yes I have-and if you don’t like Zogby, try the Air Force Times.
Only 35% of the troops approve of Bush’s Iraq War.
90% of Iraqis say country better off under Saddam
Ken
If that is true how come there were so many thousands of applicants to hang him.
Ken
Air Force Times is another lefty paper. Look hard, look carefully and try to find a newspaper that is not biased. Good luck.
90% of Iraqis say country better off under Saddam!
Are the families of the people he sent through the shredder included in this garbage? Are the people he tortured included? Are the parents of the children he tortured also included? Are the women he had raped included? Are the soccor players who were tortured because they lost included? Are the families of the people he gassed included? And how about the parents of the children he dropped out of airplanes? You are truly a fool for defending the indefensible.
Total weapons sales to Iraq from the United States between 1975 and 2003 (pre-invasion) are as follows:
1983 – 30 MD-500MD Defender Light helicopter – Transferred in 1983
1983 – 30 Hughes-300/TH-55 Light helicopter – Helicopters transferred in 1984, officially bought for civilian use, but taken over by Air Force
1985 – 26 MD-530F Light helicopter – Transferred completed 1985-86, officially bought for civilian use, but taken over by Air Force
1985 – 31 Bell-214ST Helicopters – Helicopters transferred 1987-88, originally part of order for 45 for civilian use but taken over by Air Force
Information provided by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, “Trade in and licensed production of major conventional weapons: Imports sorted by recipient. Deals with deliveries or orders made 1975-2005â€
Their disclaimer: “This register lists major weapons on order or under delivery, or for which the licence was bought and production was under way or completed during 1975- 2005. ‘Year(s) of deliveries’ includes aggregates of all deliveries and licensed production since the beginning of the contract. Sources and methods for the data collection, and the conventions, abbreviations and acronyms used, are explained in SIPRI Yearbooks. Entries are alphabetical, by recipient, supplier and licenser.â€
That is the extent of U.S. arms shipments to Iraq.
As for U.S. transfers of anthrax, the Iraqi government requested Anthrax samples from the US government for the purpose of developing animal and human vaccines for local versions of Anthrax. Could agricultural strains of anthrax be used to develop more lethal strains? I’m not a biologist. The point here is that the U.S. did not provide Iraq with biological agents that were used to kill Kurds.
Again, it is part of the myth that the U.S. provided Iraq with chemical and biological weapons. As mentioned in an earlier post, nerve agents are dual use technology – the technology doesn’t require advanced knowledge; nerve agents are variants of common insecticides.
European nations sold Iraq the equipment to make poison gas.
Here is a copy of the Riegle Report:
http://www.gulfweb.org/report/riegle1.html
I was not able to obtain a copy of the report from an official U.S. governemnt web site. I believe this is the report in its entirety, and Senator Riegle makes no conclusions or findings that the U.S. armed Saddam. He does subtantiate transfers of dual-use technology in the years prior to the Gulf War. Not the same thing as “arming Saddamâ€.
The report is concerned with the DoD’s foot dragging on the subject of Gulf War Syndrome, a group of maladies linked with low-level exposure to chemical (and possibly biological) agents.
Any comments by Senator Riegle censuring other governemnt agencies for providing weapons technology to Saddam’s Iraq are not in the report. He may have made these comments afterwards, but they do not seem to be part of any official findings.
Ted Koppel and Bob Woodward do make substantive, verifiable sources.
It is true that the U.S. cozied up to, and turned a blind eye to, Saddam during the 1980s, because he was a useful tool against Iran and the Soviet Union. During the cold war, thug dictators could offer their “loyalty†for sale to one superpower or the other, to leverage their own power at home. Now that there is only one “superpowerâ€, that strategy no longer works. It seems the new strategy is to just be menacing.
Correction:
Ted Koppel and Bob Woodward DO NOT make substantive, verifiable sources.
Hey Brilliance: you said:
“And Lenin was gone in 1924. Meaning you’re a typical American
non-genius on basic world history neverthless giving every American intervention a non-genius stamp of approval.”
So how is that different from you making the totally incorrect assinine statement that the British Empire broke up under Churchill and not be able to name one single country that left the empire during Churchill’s two terms. Quit trying to act as if you know more than anyone.
Once you name one country, as stated above, then you’ll have reason to insinuate someone is dumber than you.