GST, excellent question. I have no idea. Hold on while I get prime minister Nouri al-Maliki on the phone …

Dan, If the timing of the sentencing was supposed to help Bush and the Republicans…it didn’t. And now you think the execution will give Bush a “surge” in the polls? It won’t!

I am amazed at those who on one hand say Bush is an idiot, but on the other hand accuse him of scheming with the Saudis and Iraqis to boost his popularity. Well? Which is it? Is he a bumbling idiot, or a brilliant schemer? You can’t have it both ways!

I like the parallel between Saddam and King Nebuchadnezzar. Saddam referred to himself as an incarnate of Nebuchadnezzar and was even doing excavacions of the city of Babylon. Turns out that he suffered the same fate. Daniel (4:33) describes the downfall of Nebuchadnezzar:

He was driven from mankind; he ate grass like oxen, and his body was washed by the dew of heaven, until his hair grew like eagles’ feathers and his nails were like birds’ claws.

Dan, maybe they should put off the execution such that there’s less risk that it might help Republicans. Hopefully they can time it so it will help Democrats, who did so much to depose the guy.

Also, Adolph Eichmann was convicted on December 11, 1961, the same day the Marvellete’s released “Please Mr. Postman.” His conviction was upheld on appeal on May 29, 1962, the same day that Ernie Banks hit four home runs against Milwaukee at Wrigley Field. Eichmann was executed just days later on June 1, the same day the Twilight Zone episode “Changing of the Guard,” guest-starring Donald Pleasence, first aired. I ask you: Coincidence??

As far as Saddam, well he deserves what he gets.

Let’s not forget, that while this is, at least in name, an “Iraqi death penalty” in reality it is a penalty that was only able to be imposed because the United States of America invaded a sovereign, foreign land, that did not pose the threat to support such an invasion. Furthermore, it is a penalty imposed by a government which exists only because it is propped up and supported by United States military might. It is a penalty that will widely be seen through out the world as one actually imposed and carried out by the United States of America. I question the wisdom in treading down this path. Clearly those whose insights we have to thank for this war, see things differently–and I suggest perhaps through a glass darkly.

Dan, there’s more to this war than simply ousting and executing a vicious dictator.

For one thing, we have seen that elections can be held in a major Arab country (shortly after a totalitarian government is overthrown) and that a huge percentage of the population will risk their lives to cast a vote. We should never forget all those upraised purple fingers.

I believe there are long-term benefits to overthrowing Saddam and attempting to install a stable democracy in Iraq. Yes it’s a huge mess now and any long-term benefits may take awhile to emerge. But I still hope that ten or twenty years from now, things might look a lot better.

Anyone who thought this would be a clean or easy transition was deluding himself/herself. But just because things are a terrible mess at this point, doesn’t mean it won’t ultimately have been worth it.

danithew,

Dan, there’s more to this war than simply ousting and executing a vicious dictator.

The execution of this war on the ground speaks otherwise. We never had enough troops to actually take the country in full. We had enough troops to take Baghdad, but did not have any backup for the long slog of occupation that inevitably and inexorably would follow. Whoever thinks you can do nation-building on the cheap is deluding themselves.

For one thing, we have seen that elections can be held in a major Arab country (shortly after a totalitarian government is overthrown) and that a huge percentage of the population will risk their lives to cast a vote. We should never forget all those upraised purple fingers.

Other Arab countries have had elections. Furthermore elections are not the end all be all of democracies. The upraised purple fingers mean nothing on dead hands.

I believe there are long-term benefits to overthrowing Saddam and attempting to install a stable democracy in Iraq.

And I believe we can all live in peace in this world. But unfortunately reality plays a very different game.

Yes it’s a huge mess now and any long-term benefits may take awhile to emerge. But I still hope that ten or twenty years from now, things might look a lot better.

Where do you get this optimism from, because the facts on the ground speak of something completely different. Danithew, do you understand the complexity of the situation? The insurgency in Iraq is Sunni based. Saudi Arabia is Sunni. The Shi’ites in Iraq want to install a Sharia based government and are backed by the Iranians. Our very action, in taking out Saddam and opening Pandora’s Box might actually lead to a larger regional war. Is this really something Americans want? Furthermore, just who will be our allies? Just who will ally with us? The Sunnis? Well that means that our allies are Iraqi insurgents, Al-Qaida and the Taliban. The Shi’ites? Well that means our allies are Hezbollah and the mullahs in Iran. It would be funny if it weren’t so tragically deadly, but we, on the one hand support the same Shi’ites that Iran supports, but on the other rattle our sabres at the Shi’ites in Iran. On the one hand we support the corrupt Saudi government, yet on the other easily find it in ourselves to kill their brothers in Iraq.

I understand your desired goal for peace in the Middle East, but taking out Saddam was never going to achieve this. Those who opted and supported this action never understood the vast divide between Shi’ites and Sunnis, nor that Saddam was a plug in a critical crack in the wall holding back a lake of fire. But then again, this war was never about actually reshaping the Middle East. It was about shaping the image of one George W. Bush.

Anyone who thought this would be a clean or easy transition was deluding himself/herself. But just because things are a terrible mess at this point, doesn’t mean it won’t ultimately have been worth it.

Yes, you have a burning house, that continues burning to the ground. Sure it looks terrible now, but ultimately will be worth burning down…..that just doesn’t make sense, danithew. It especially does not make sense when you want to add wood and kindling to the fire. All wisened experts say that the resolution to this situation is political, yet what does Bush want to do? He is sending more troops, as if a military action will stop the violence. That’s like bringing a bottle of oil to the burning house and hoping that liquid will douse the fire.

American optimism is a beautiful thing, but when delusional and impractical is one of the worst things in the world.

talk radio is reporting that unless the media botches this prediction worse than they did the 2000 returns, sadaam’s execution will take place on or before 7:00 p.m. west coast time today. i heard a snippet about his lawyers looking for a stay based on a civil suit out of dc? okay, just heard iraqi state television says it’s all so…

danithew,

I know what you think and you know what I think about it. Neither of us is likely to change our minds.

Which is too bad, because people are dying.

Boy. Mixed emotions. I’m in favor of the death penalty and he was killed by his own people. He deserved to die. I just wonder about all the other despots who should die. I wonder if more innocents will die in retribution for his death.

I’m nervous and anxious and upset. I’m afraid for those people. And I’m glad he’s dead.

Dan, I never gave one thought to George Bush. This is so not about him.

To you, maybe. Not to me.

gst: Also, Adolph Eichmann was convicted on December 11, 1961, the same day the Marvellete’s released “Please Mr. Postman.” His conviction was upheld on appeal on May 29, 1962, the same day that Ernie Banks hit four home runs against Milwaukee at Wrigley Field. Eichmann was executed just days later on June 1, the same day the Twilight Zone episode “Changing of the Guard,” guest-starring Donald Pleasence, first aired. I ask you: Coincidence??

That’s plain spooky. More spooky than I’m used to at any rate.

Jared,

ah yes, because only leftists have political agendas….

danithew,

I direct you to what Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell said before 9/11 mind you, about Saddam and about the sanctions. And here is the transcript.

We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions — the fact that the sanctions exist — not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein’s ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq…

Of course, this is Powell before 9/11 before the “paradigm shift” as Rumsfeld likes to call it…was Powell lying?

You also say that “any country in the world could have taken him out.” I know that you are aware that Iraq fought a war with Iran for EIGHT YEARS. Or that he invaded and pillaged Kuwait. If what you were saying were true, don’t you think that Iran or Kuwait would have, in fact, “taken him out”?! I don’t really think you would be dumb enough to say such a ridiculous thing, but you did. Are you intentionally blinding yourself?

Dude, of course Kuwait could not have taken Iraq in 1991. Of course Iran could not take Iran in the 80s. But that’s not what we were talking about were we? No. We’re talking about Saddam AFTER the sanctions wrecked his country, in 2003. Yes, I believe even Kuwait could have taken Saddam in 2003. That’s how weak sanctions made him. Unless you call Powell a liar.

Saddam Hussein is NOT “small fry.” Anything but. Even in his death he is not “small fry.” He has been a massively significant figure in Middle East politics for at least three decades. No one we should take seriously would ever say such a thing.

He was a small fry in 2003. That’s my point. Again you compare two different time periods without explaining the difference between the two. In 2003, Saddam was small fry. In the 80s he was not.

I have seen a lot of evidence that people should be careful to ignore what you think about Middle East politics. Your thinking and conclusions in regards to that region are so completely distorted and misguided.

Eh, it’s alright. To this point there is not a thing I have been proven wrong on regarding the Middle East.

He was a serious problem, you’re right. He wasn’t worth an invasion. Never was.

Jared,

Instead of being far right or far left they should try meeting in the middle. Then something might really get done.

I look forward to that day. Unfortunately as long as Bush is in power, it will never happen.

Bush a moderate conservative? Maybe in Bizzaro World!

Dan, I notice that you’re the “top commenter” here according to the counter on the sidebar. Apparently you’re a man with a lot to say.

Politics at BYU? And you’re not a republican? How is that possible?

Dan, as regards domestic policy, Bush is indistinguishable from a died in the wool liberal.

Our college here has a young Republicans club (or whatever they call it) but nothing for the Democrats. Not sure why.

I am currently attending Eastern Washington University. Since the college requires a “liberal” education I actually had to take a government class or two. Pretty interesting, made me really start thinking about politics more.

Exactly. Even on campus where you can find Liberals they certainly don’t want to stay on this side of the state. I would prefer to be on the other side of the state but it’s just to expensive.