MacHanging!

I personally saw the video of Saddam being hanged on YouTube...The scene was.....quite disturbing, but then again I'm used to seeing disturbing things. If I had to make a comparison to his victims I'd say that this individual had gotten off rather fairly. I highly doubt this man's execution would change the outcome in Iraq. I think what disturbs me was that this man was reciting the Shahadatain and, at the end when he was saying Muhammadan Rasul.....He was already dead. The video which was a camera phone had shot glances at Saddams face back and forth. His eyes still opened....Again quite gruesome.

I agree with the author that this trial....excuse me, mock trial was quite fast and the execution did land on a day which was considered "Holy" considered it landed on the day which Hajj ends. Now, both sides of this debate say that was disrespect to Islam. Some say that it was symbolic for one era and the beginning of another. So it boiled down to whatever perspective you thought.

Saddam was dead even when they found him in the Rabbit hole where he was living.  But me thinks that the Arab world has suffered much humilation lately. First in the beginning of the Iraq war many Arabs were humiliated at how fast the U.S got to Baghdad with little resistence and now this.

How Washington and London helped to create the monster they went
to war to destroy

By Rupert Cornwell in Washington

12/31/06 "The Independent" -- - -When they hanged him, he was
America's vanquished foe, likened to Hitler and Stalin for the
murderous evil of his ways. What is forgotten is that once, for more
than a decade, Saddam Hussein was staunchly supported by the US.

Indeed, it was Washington that supplied him with many of the
weapons of mass destruction the dictator used against his foes -
weapons that one day would serve as a pretext for the US-led
invasion that toppled him.

The dealings between the US and Saddam's Iraq over the quarter of a
century before 2003 are a story of deceit, miscalculation and
strategic blunders by both sides. And they began, as they would end,
in the shadow of a common enemy: Iran.

Saddam seized complete power in 1978. Two years later he attacked
Iran, in what he called an "Arab war against the Persians", to
overthrow the Islamic revolutionary regime.

Washington was under no illusions about the brutality of Saddam's
regime. But as Tehran gained the upper hand in the fighting, he
came to be seen as the lesser of two evils - a vital bulwark against
domination by a radical, anti-Western Iran of the strategically vital
Gulf region, with its colossal oil reserves.

Quietly, the US delivered the technology, weapons and logistical
support to prevent Iraq's defeat. Its policy was symbolised by the
cordial meeting in Baghdad in December 1983 between Saddam and
a certain Donald Rumsfeld, then President Reagan's special envoy to
the Middle East. Two decades later, as Secretary of Defence, he
would plan the invasion that toppled Saddam.

American assistance often took the form of dual-use technology that
had legitimate civilian uses, but which Washington was well aware
could (and would) be used on the battlefield. US intelligence also
provided Iraqi commanders with crucial information on Iranian troop
movements.

American backing grew ever more explicit. In 1982, the
administration ignored objections in Congress and removed Iraq
from its list of countries supporting terrorism. By November 1983,
the National Security Council had issued a directive that the US
should do "whatever was necessary and legal" to prevent an Iranian
victory. Washington did nothing to deter Saddam's use of chemical
weapons.

As the 1980s progressed, a clandestine network of companies
developed in the US and other countries to help the Iraqi war effort.
The conflict between Iraq and Iran ended in 1988, but Saddam
continued his Western-supported military build-up until the very
moment he invaded Kuwait in August 1990.

It would be the turning point. Until then, the US had dealt with
Saddam in the context of keeping Iran at bay. Thereafter, however,
the Iraqi dictator was the enemy in his own right. The irony, of
course, was that America's previous support encouraged him to think
he could get away with annexing Kuwait.

Indeed, just a week earlier, on 25 July 1990, the American
ambassador, April Glaspie, had met Saddam. According to a
transcript of the meeting, she informed him that Washington had no
opinion on Arab-Arab conflicts, "like your border disagreement with
Kuwait".

The US-led coalition drove Iraqi forces from Kuwait in a 100-hour
ground war, but the first President Bush decided not to press on to
Baghdad, creating the stalemate that in one form or another
continued until 2003. In the meantime, however, the truth gradually
emerged about how the US (and Britain) helped to create the monster
they had now half-slain.

Events thereafter make familiar reading: Saddam's moves against the
Kurds and the Shias, as the first President Bush encouraged them to
rise up but did nothing to support them; a dozen years of sanctions
that brought misery on ordinary Iraqis but not to the regime; and
Operation Desert Fox in 1998, as the US and Britain launched their
heaviest air attacks until the 2003 war itself.

All the while, Saddam remained in power. Almost from the moment
he came to office, the second President Bush had his eye on finishing
his father's business.After a three-week ground war he was duly
overthrown. But in doing so, the US has achieved exactly what it
sought to prevent when it backed him in the 1980s.

It is a matter of debate whether Iraqis are now worse off than under
Saddam's dictatorship. The chaos in their country, however, has
produced one undisputed winner: an unchecked Iran, more menacing
today than in Ayatollah Khomeini's time.


















�


�


�

Duende wrote: Patty and Ops 154, let's see if plain English might help you begin to understand the outrage felt at the execution of Saddam. First: Under Iraqi law approved while Saddam was in power (before the occupiers i.e Paul Bremer changed it) it was illegal to carry out executions on public holidays. He is no longer in power so his laws are no longer valid. The execution was performed on one of Islam's most highly valued holidays. How would you feel, if one of you star criminals, let's say O J Simpson, were to be executed on Christmas day? Oh, but of course, O J received a 'fair' trial and was innexplicably declared innocent. How the mighty American justice system works. Recently he wrote a book by way of purging his crippling guilt, called "If I Did It." His publisher had a sudden attack of decency at the last minute and withdrew publication. Not my holiday so do whatever you would like on Christmas Day. Also many of us wanted to see OJ get life in prison as well but sometimes our rules actually protect the accused and he was able to get out. Imagine if Saddam had received a fair trial, you might have learned how for ten years he received billions of dollars from Washington, and the sattelite images of Iranian positions prior to his attack on that country, by way of help. Guess what, MOST middle eastern countries get money and weapons from us. Like I've said before, our money is good enough but our people are not Second: What most of us are disgusted by, is the utter hypocricy of having a man responsible for many crimes, put to death after a trial which most humanitarian associations and the European court deemed defficient and of questionable integrity/legality, and yet leaders of other countries (hint: US, Great Britain, Australia) responsible for the death of thousands, are allowed to continue in their posts. Iraqi's had the chance to vote and install a government that they wanted, if they decided to boycott then that is their own problem. If they couldn't get there because someone may blown them up in a suicide bomb, then, again not my problem. Nobody here supported Saddam Hussein, however, the results of the American led invasion of Iraq make him look like quite a decent ruler, in comparison with today's Iraq, where thugs and vengeful criminals rule, under the protection of American fire power. I can promise you one thing, you would not have so many civilians dead if it was not for the idiots who think blowing themselves up will create peace. It is the sheer hypocricy of the final act which immediately makes one feel like declaring Saddam to have been a hero, despite the propaganda we've been swallowing about him.     The hypocrisy is yours, the thugs you speak about were held back by saddam with extremely cruel techniques.  Have you ever thought that the only reason you didn't hear about so many deaths before we went in was maybe because the press couldn't report on it out of fear of being killed? Do you hold any responsibility to the suicide bombers or insurgents who attack the largest groups they can find? Or is just all the evil American's fault, just like all of your other problems?

 

Patty and Ops 154, let's see if plain English might help you begin to understand the outrage felt at the execution of Saddam.

First: Under Iraqi law approved while Saddam was in power (before the occupiers i.e Paul Bremer changed it) it was illegal to carry out executions on public holidays.

He is no longer in power so his laws are no longer valid.

Now I know why I miss you so when you go hibernating!

For such fairy stories, my friend, for your mastery of extempore fabrications.

(Truth: An occupying power can�t alter or meddle with the laws of the occupied country)

The execution was performed on one of Islam's most highly valued holidays. How would you feel, if one of you star criminals, let's say O J Simpson, were to be executed on Christmas day? Oh, but of course, O J received a 'fair' trial and was
inexplicably declared innocent. How the mighty American justice system works. Recently he wrote a book by way of purging his crippling guilt, called "If I Did It." His publisher had a sudden attack of decency at the last minute and withdrew publication.

Not my holiday so do whatever you would like on Christmas Day. Also many of us wanted to see OJ get life in prison as well but sometimes our rules actually protect the accused and he was able to get out.

We have noticed, these rules always protect the bigger criminals.

Imagine if Saddam had received a fair trial, you might have learned how for ten years he received billions of dollars from Washington, and the satellite images of Iranian positions prior to his attack on that country, by way of help.

Guess what, MOST middle eastern countries get money and weapons from us. Like I've said before, our money is good enough but our people are not

Really? I sincerely need to be educated on that. Is this money in the form of some charity sent by your local church of the �no strings attached� kind? Someone told me that Egyptian government, not the country or the people, were paid huge amounts by the US to suppress democratic movements there.

Right or Wrong?

Second: What most of us are disgusted by, is the utter hypocricy of having a man responsible for many crimes, put to death after a trial which most humanitarian associations and the European court deemed defficient and of questionable integrity/legality, and yet leaders of other countries (hint: US, Great Britain, Australia) responsible for the death of thousands, are allowed to continue in
their posts.

Iraqi's had the chance to vote and install a government that they wanted,

I told you, I do miss you when you go missing. Even the best of spin masters are unable to spin any such stories, with such a straight face and in front of such a serious Forum. (Truth: Voting by any occupied people doesn�t count + we also know what the US did there) 

Nobody here supported Saddam Hussein, however, the results of the American led invasion of Iraq make him look like quite a decent ruler, in comparison with today's Iraq, where thugs and vengeful criminals rule, under the protection of American fire power.

I can promise you one thing, you would not have so many civilians dead if it was not for the idiots who think blowing themselves up will create peace.

Have you ever thought of a joint venture with J K Rowling in creating even more fantastic Harry Potters? Or, better still, let�s start �Potty Hatters�, I promise, we will have bigger hits than her. Tomorrow, I will think of creating a special corner for you in our midst, almost, like they have special chairs dedicated for certain disciplines at the unis.

It is the sheer hypocricy of the final act which immediately makes one feel like declaring Saddam to have been a hero, despite the propaganda we've been swallowing about him.   

The hypocrisy is yours, the thugs you speak about were held back by saddam with extremely cruel techniques. Have you ever thought that the only reason you didn't hear about so many deaths before we went in was maybe because the press couldn't report on it out of fear of being killed? 

I agree with you wholeheartedly.

All the US media was trembling with fear and reporting only the best of him, when he was killing all those people. Washington was shaking and giving him all those billions just to keep his death squads at bay. Remember that (now world famous) picture in which poor Rumsfeld was offering him that tribute of (also now world famous) Golden spurs?

Do you hold any responsibility to the suicide bombers or insurgents who attack the largest groups they can find? Or is just all the evil American's fault, just like all of your other problems?

I used to bark exactly the same question at people when I was 26 (are you past it or just going past it?) But then someone (and, would you believe it, an American professor!) threw three serious history books and a current affairs appraisal at me. He said these might help you to climb down from your Cloud Nine or where ever you hide. I was forced to realise that the Brits and the US hold a joint monopoly on manufacturing all the global problems in our world � of the past century and a half.

Very rarely they franchise some of their pets.