Home > World Events > Saddam dead. Hooray.

Saddam dead. Hooray.

January 3rd, 2007

I was off the air when the news of Saddam’s execution came through. I’ve had my say about the trial (here and here) already, and all the issues have been chewed over by others, so for now I’ll just say that he got what he deserved.

Categories: World Events Tags:
  1. Dave Surls
    January 5th, 2007 at 05:56 | #1

    “Dave, you’d better get Mom to call the doctor and increase the dosage on your medication.”

    Juvenile insult (and the same one repeated endlessly). Par for the course for state supported “academics”, I suppose.

    “make it clear why everything his Administration has attempted has been a disastrous failure”

    The Iraq war is a disastrous failure for the Baathists and their terrorist proxies (like Nidal and Abbas, for example), and for faux anti-war clowns.

    Not for my side.

  2. January 5th, 2007 at 06:41 | #2

    Latest news via Juan Cole: al-Sadr has the rope that was used to hang Saddam. So yes, it was a lynching.

    No wonder al-Maliki is telling the USA to take his job and shove it.

  3. wilful
    January 5th, 2007 at 08:03 | #3

    Anyway…if I was running the United States, my policy would be to execute ALL of the senior leadership of the former Baathist government of Iraq, because, among other things, they assisted terrorists like Abu Nidal and Abu Abbas, who murdered totally innocent Americans in cold blood…and I’d make it real clear that’s why I was executing them.

    So, quid pro quo, I would execute every single meber of the US Armed Forces, right down to the Coast Guard chaplain, becuase of the countless atrocities commited by your boys and girls in uniform that have resulted in the deaths of totaly innocent civilians from around the world.

    Makes about as much sense.

  4. Dave Surls
    January 5th, 2007 at 10:34 | #4

    “So, quid pro quo, I would execute every single meber of the US Armed Forces…”

    I’ll bet you dream about it.

  5. frankis
    January 5th, 2007 at 10:59 | #5

    Which side is your side Dave? I ask because it seems you often identify yourself by what you hate rather than by what you love, so why not tell us about your side? If there are many Iraqis on your side can you point to a recent article or study that would give a ballpark figure for their number? So many questions, questions …

  6. January 5th, 2007 at 11:46 | #6

    Dear John

    This is a sad discussion. I hope we won’t be subjected to a referendum on the capital punishment issue. Perhaps some of these people would have more fun somewhere else.

  7. wilful
    January 5th, 2007 at 12:06 | #7

    wrong dave. I was pointing out your idiocy. As a matter of fact, I’m pro-american. That’s why I’m devoutly anti-Bush et al.

  8. jquiggin
    January 5th, 2007 at 12:20 | #8

    Dave, it should be clear by now that I don’t regard your comments as worthy of a serious response. As several people have implied, unless you’re a secret partisan of Moqtada al-Sadr, your claims that your side is winning are simply delusional, as are your fantasies of exterminating all who oppose you (or rather, of having others do it on your behalf, since you clearly have no intention of putting on a uniform).

    I don’t see any purpose in your commenting here, other than as entertainment for my readers, and, as you suggest, the joke is getting old.

  9. January 5th, 2007 at 12:41 | #9

    Mr Surls is astro-turfing to take the debate away from the real issue. Even the website he quotes from contains a recent news release:

    “Hanging After Flawed Trial Undermines Rule Of Law”

    http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/12/30/iraq14950.htm

  10. January 5th, 2007 at 16:29 | #10

    Being against capital punishment in principle isn’t much of a principle if it’s suspended in certain cases.

    It’s interesting that some of those who are glad of the execution explain their enthusiasm in terms of Saddam Husseins bent for killing. In their position, they would find Saddam firmly on their side.

  11. January 5th, 2007 at 19:35 | #11

    Michael: There is a clear distinction between extermination of vermin & a desire to kill, exhibited by actively seeking out “deserving” cases for killing, where none really exist.

    Perhaps not all people understand this.

  12. derrida derider
    January 5th, 2007 at 19:48 | #12

    It really would have been better, on a lot of grounds, if Saddam had spent the rest of his natural life writing his memoirs in a high-security jail in the Hague. I suspect there are plenty of people in many countries (including the US) who are glad he never had a chance to write them.

    The timing and manner of his execution is just another disaster in the long list of disasters in Iraq.

  13. January 5th, 2007 at 20:45 | #13

    And those disasters commenced the day Saddam took power.

  14. January 5th, 2007 at 21:33 | #14

    SATB,

    Well not much really. It hinges on the principle that killing is best avoided, and that trying to achieve justice via killing is a futile exercise.

    Naturally, Saddam himself disagreed, finding executions via his secret police to be a very handy form of justice for those he regarded as vermin.

  15. Hal9000
    January 6th, 2007 at 08:09 | #15

    SATP “And those disasters commenced the day Saddam took power.”

    Written wth magnificent ignorance of Iraqi 20th Century history. Perhaps you’d care to re-think following a bit of Googling ‘iraq arthur harris poison gas’. Should be an eye-opener.

    Perhaps some thought (I know, it’s tough) and research could also be devoted to how Saddam Hussein achieved power, who put him there, and who were the urgers for his invasion of Iran.

    Meanwhile, I’m mildly intrigued by the non-drinking remark, since you choose a pub as your moniker and beer as your avatar. I like others had naturally assumed that the aggressive bile your posts normally consist originated from over-consumption. I’m saddened to learn these are the outpourings of a sober individual.

  16. wilful
    January 6th, 2007 at 08:51 | #16

    OK I’ve learnt my lesson. No more surly Dave for me.

  17. January 6th, 2007 at 09:57 | #17

    “Meanwhile, I’m mildly intrigued by the non-drinking remark, since you choose a pub as your moniker and beer as your avatar. I like others had naturally assumed that the aggressive bile your posts normally consist originated from over-consumption. I’m saddened to learn these are the outpourings of a sober individual.”

    Very good stuff Hal9000, clearly demonstrates the gulf between your beliefs & reality, and the words came out of your own mouth! :-) :-) :-)

  18. January 6th, 2007 at 10:30 | #18

    In Surls’ World the USA etc. never gave any support to the evil Saddam.
    Lefty liars photoshopped Rumsfeld into the famous photo shaking hands with him.

    To be fair, if those views are genuinely held by anyone but the blindest shill then his ‘side’ might indeed have ‘won’ to some extent.

  19. January 6th, 2007 at 10:48 | #19

    Megan: If you are going to adhere to that belief, Dave Surls’ side will come out way in front if holistic view is taken.

    For lefties backed the Russian Revolution, & were backing Stalin into the 1940′s (& indeed some are still). In fact every left wing takeover was supported by lefties.

    The scorecard of murdered millions would then put the left VERY MUCH on the wrong side.

    I suggest a change of mind. Yesterday’s ally often becomes today’s abhorrent enemy.

  20. January 6th, 2007 at 11:03 | #20

    I’m not on anyone’s side, I’m simply a spectator. But as far as sides go, you and Dave seem to be wearing the same coloured jerseys.

  21. jquiggin
    January 6th, 2007 at 11:09 | #21

    Dave Surls can’t take a hint, so I’ll spell out for him. He’s worn out my patience, and anything further from him will be deleted.

  22. January 6th, 2007 at 11:31 | #22

    “For lefties backed the Russian Revolution, & were backing Stalin into the 1940’s (& indeed some are still). In fact every left wing takeover was supported by lefties.” – SATP

    Oh dear, we’re grasping at straws to defend supporting Saddam by looking back to Stalin.

    Though even, then there is a significant difference; Stalin represented a perversion of leftist ideals, while the policies and actions of conservatives (Rumsfeld, Bush et al) in supporting Saddam were consistent with conservative ideals.

  23. Jill Rush
    January 7th, 2007 at 10:36 | #23

    I agree with Prof Q. I cannot be sorry that Saddam Hussein is dead. I think that the death penalty however does demean those who implement it and inures them to other evils that they may perpetrate. The kind of thinking where the ends justify the means is far from civilised and takes us back to days when the heads of enemies were put on spikes and displayed tp be gloated over. Needless to say these societies were in general brutal and nasty.

    The process and the subsequent media has caused me considerable concern. To have a photo of the gallows scene on the front page of the Sunday paper clearly seen by my and other people’s children along with details that there is a movie available on the web of this event is very disturbing.

    I doubt that there is anyone posting here who hasn’t viewed one or the other. Why have we had so little choice in this and why hasn’t there been real outrage at the horror movie so blatantly shoved at us? In the age of the airheads it seems that any nobility of action has long gone, but I really don’t want this as a way of the future in Australia. There is no reason to descend into a brutish, nasty society. What is most disturbing is that the Federal govt seems to be so comfortable with the fact that the judicial murder has been so graphically displayed in our media. Channel 9 showed all but the last moment in prime time without any comment from the government.
    Having read to the end of this blog there has been almost no discussion of the ghoulish nature of the response – just the latest sample of reality tv – perhaps it could become a series “Just Desserts”.

  24. Jimmythespiv
    January 7th, 2007 at 21:30 | #24

    JQ

    Yer’ to heavy on the deletions – even people sympathetic to his general drift can see he’s making a right pillock out of himself !

  25. Dave Surls
    January 8th, 2007 at 10:20 | #25

    Geez, point out a couple of untrue statements (out of thousands) made by leftys, and suggest that the top Baathists get the Nuremburg treatment, and right away Quiggin breaks out in a cold sweat, and whips out the censorship baton.

    You missed your calling, John. You should have been a commissar.

  26. Dave Surls
    January 8th, 2007 at 11:20 | #26

    “In Surls’ World the USA etc. never gave any support to the evil Saddam.”

    Well, I guess my comment will get deleted, but…I never said any such thing. You leftys seem to have a fundamental issue with just sticking to the facts.

    What I said is is that the story that the wicked Americans provided the Iraqis helicopters that were subsequently used to spray chemical agents on the Kurds at Halabja appears to be a bunch of hogwash.

    At least according to eyewitness reports gathered by those evil right wingers over at HRW.

  27. January 8th, 2007 at 14:38 | #27

    But they certainly were quick to jump in and point fingers at Iran, when they knew it was Saddam.

    Aiding and abetting anyone?

  28. wbb
    January 10th, 2007 at 22:32 | #28

    I second Jill Rush’s concern but then again, kids have a simpler cast if mind. Even tho, as on over-protective parent, I hid the front of the paper that day, I’m sure that if they’d seen it, they’d've just’ve thought: “the bogey-man is dead, hooray!”

  29. peterd
    January 16th, 2007 at 12:14 | #29

    SATP: “For lefties backed the Russian Revolution, & were backing Stalin into the 1940’s (& indeed some are still). In fact every left wing takeover was supported by lefties” …….
    Poor SATP: he still doesn’t understand that one could consistently be a supporter of the Russian Revolution (because of the destruction caused Russian society by the Tasarist regime) and yet be a critic of Stalin (as in fact many leftists were).

    SATP: “I suggest a change of mind. Yesterday’s ally often becomes today’s abhorrent enemy.”
    How true. And yesterday’s enemy can become today’s friend (our old friend Stalin again, before and after the invasion of the Soviet Union by Germany).

Comment pages
1 2 3349
Comments are closed.