Just saw on the news this afternoon (australia time) saddam was executed! yay!

Yes, the news reported celebratory gunfire. I wonder how they can tell the difference between that and regular gunfire?

Will not make a difference. I am not a bunny hugger, but we put him in charge. Let us leave the world alone; we would be happier. Greedy politicians need to go to hell.

. That would leave no one to govern the countries! Take me here in Ontario for instance. Every hydro bill I get has extra charged to pay off the debt of former employees.

hey, in australia once you serve a certain amount of time as a politician you get a pension, indexed to inflation for life.

That is true AKK, whilst he was in power before US involvement (was deputy president from 1963-79, then president from '79 til '03) the US did supply him with resources to fight Iran. Why did the US think saddam had WMDs? they kept a copy of the recepts...

I wonder if we'll ever see a video of Saddam doing his rope dance?

I wonder if we'll ever see a video of Saddam doing his rope dance?

I'm no fan of Saddam, but the news coverage of his execution reflects quite poorly on the US and the western world by showing the hypocrisy of our leaders. When bringing a dictator to justice suits the aim of politicians' political goals, we can be sure that we'll hear all about how our leaders' superior sense of morality deems the dictator to deserve death. On ther other hand, when doing the same to another dictator would not provide our politicians with political gains, we can be sure that the truth will be muffled to keep the public from knowing about it as much as possible. On this moral low ground in which we stand, I would be embarrassed to stand up and critize anyone.

If what Saddam did was so egregious, then why did our leaders supply him with chemical and biological weapons during the 80s? The answer is obviously that he was our ally. Our leaders look the other way when atrocities are committed by our allies, but demonize when same is committed by our enemies. Do you wonder why Saddam was tried and quickly executed for the deaths of small number of people when he was probably responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths? Why not charge him for all of his crimes? Why not let the world see the full extend of his evil and the evil of his cohorts? Why not? The answer, in my opinion, is that the leaders of US and other accomplices in the western world don't want the rest of the world to see how their hands are also full of blood, almost as much as Saddam's.

If you are cheering that he is dead, you obviously did not know about how he died. To the people in Arab world, Saddam died a martyr's death by defying his captors to the very last second, even when the executioners were hurling insults at him while putting the noose around his head and pulling the lever. To the Sunni's in the Arab world, Saddam died a martyr. To the snipes, it was another sectarian revenge killing. I don't see how this could have been good for the future of Iraq, or anybody save the terrorists who thrive on chaos and civil wars. The best way for people to remember Saddam's is by locking him up for good in a little cell without windows so that he can never be heard from again and deny his final photo-op of his defiance against the world.

Why did the US think saddam had WMDs? they kept a copy of the recepts.

Wrong! The US intelligence did not have enough evidence to say Saddam had WMD in 2003. This administration cherry picked evidence and lied to world by using bogus intelligence to justify their desire to take out Saddam's regime.

yeh I know, that was actually a joke I have heard.........

Was the Iraq war about WMDs? Well, Bush & Co. said so to begin with, and that is what our PM went onto the floor of parliament with. Well, we didn't find any. What about for liberty? Well, looking back on it whilst Saddam was a blood thirsty evildoer, Iraq is a lot more violent now than pre '03. Whilst Iraqis now have freedom of speech etc. the civilian death toll is escalating. My left-wing buddies and myself said before the invasion that it would be another vietnam - and it looks like we will be proved right.

What about for the oil? Even at the best of times, Iraq only produces 3 million barrels a day - the US produces more. So does Russia, Saudis, and Iran. Plus the price of oil has doubled since march '03. If it was to get the oil then it was a god-awful stuff-up.

Real reson? Bear in mind two things. Before he was Vice POTUS, Cheney was a director at halliburton. Halliburton, from what I can gather, supplies services to the US Army, as well as some reconstruction services for war zones etc. Halliburton has probably been sitting real pretty. That plus the fact that the Bush family has had ties to the Bin Ladens for over 30 years, so any deflection of critisism of Saudi Arabia (Bin Laden is a Saudi, as were 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers) would have been worth while. The war on terror and the war in Iraq is simply a smoke and mirrors excercise. 3000 US boys and girls have died, Bush is responsible (he may as well have killed them with his bare hands), impeach him now!!! Rise up, comrades, against the evil neocons!!!

Someone has to keep the world free of inhumane dictators.

Ok, so in my final line I got a bit carried away. However, Bush lied to his parliament/congress etc, and acted favourably to his conflict of intrest. The only competant thing he has done is introduce the hydrogen fuel cell program. Had he been in Australia, he would have been sacked.

Between 1972-1975 we had a Prime Minister (Gough Whitlam) who, though he abolished conscription, made women equal and gave free college education to the masses - did some very silly things - like borrow money from the Arabs to pay for all his election promises. Cabinet documents made public last year under the 30yr rule showed that a reason why Whitlam was sacked on November 11 '75 was that after Nov. 30 '75 there would simply be no money to pay federal public servants' salaries. He was sacked, government was dissolved, we had an election that Labour got profoundly walloped in.

More recently, the NSW police minister Carl Scully was sacked over twice denying the existance of a certain report (or something like tha) on the floor of parliament.

In Australia, if you are an incompetant politician, you will get your comeuppance.

Yes, the world must be free of inhumane dictators. But there were bigger fish to fry than Saddam, both now and in the past.

Yes, a similar thing (shift to the political left) is happening here also. On a Two Party preferred basis, Labour (our equivalent of democrats) is in front 55-45 on opinion polls. There is some backlash about John Howards 'WorkChoices' legislation (basically, where management sees fit union awards and conditions are thrown out, and people negotiate on an individual basis), the war in Iraq, Howard's promise to keep intrest rates low. However, the biggest thing is the new opposition leader goes on 'Sunrise' every friday morning for a chat. BTW, Sunrise is the leading breakfast TV program in Australia. He is getting himself out there, whilst howard is holed up in his Lodge.

Iraq might become a lot worse than Vietnam. One was fighting to unite. The other is fighting to tear the country apart and take revenge based on religious beliefs. I think they're sowing the seeds for some intense sectarian conflicts on the scale of Palestine and Israel.

More likely than not, there will be a snipes dictator to replace Saddam because Iraq is simply not ready for democracy. The promise of a tsunami of democracy in the Middle East has proved to be quite bogus

.

thought that was the point of a 'general' section... we can end the thread if moderators see fit

I would like to see the U.S work towards getting the Iraq people to a point where they can govern themselves. I think the only people we should have there is people who can monitor their government and the country, to insure another Saddam does not come to power.

Yes, a similar thing (shift to the political left) is happening here also. On a Two Party preferred basis, Labour (our equivalent of democrats) is in front 55-45 on opinion polls. There is some backlash about John Howards 'WorkChoices' legislation (basically, where management sees fit union awards and conditions are thrown out, and people negotiate on an individual basis), the war in Iraq, Howard's promise to keep intrest rates low. However, the biggest thing is the new opposition leader goes on 'Sunrise' every friday morning for a chat. BTW, Sunrise is the leading breakfast TV program in Australia. He is getting himself out there, whilst howard is holed up in his Lodge.

Shaun:

Instead of "rising up against the evil neocons," I think it would be smarter to rise up against the evil Commie-Liberals. You're starting to scare me, son! I haven't got time to take you apart now, since I've got to get ready to go to work, so I can pay my taxes to support all the Liberal Democrat sycophants who live off the government. But I'll get back to you -- so keep thinking your useless, socialist thoughts of how you would make the world better by giving away someone else's money, and by not defending yourself against evil tyrants who want to kill you!

nstead of "rising up against the evil neocons," I think it would be smarter to rise up against the evil Commie-Liberals. You're starting to scare me, son! I haven't got time to take you apart now, since I've got to get ready to go to work, so I can pay my taxes to support all the Liberal Democrat sycophants who live off the government. But I'll get back to you -- so keep thinking your useless, socialist thoughts of how you would make the world better by giving away someone else's money, and by not defending yourself against evil tyrants who want to kill you!

These two-bits evil tyrants have got more things to worry about than killing us. Did Saddam try to invade America? No. Was Saddam part of the al-quida plot of 9-11? No. Was Saddam part of any plot to blow up America? No. Saddam hated religious fanatics like Bin-Ladin because they would probably bring his dictatorship down. Two-bits dictators like Saddam have got to worry about staying in power; the last thing he would do is to provoke a large scale attack, which mean to end of his rule, his luxury palaces and riches. I hope people see thru the lies of the administration that Saddam was orchestrated 9-11 with Bin-Ladin. It never happened. Instead of focusing our resources on getting Bin-Ladin and winning the hearts and minds of Middle Easterners on the streets, we go on a silly adventure of hunting down a two-bit dictator.

nstead of "rising up against the evil neocons," I think it would be smarter to rise up against the evil Commie-Liberals. You're starting to scare me, son! I haven't got time to take you apart now, since I've got to get ready to go to work, so I can pay my taxes to support all the Liberal Democrat sycophants who live off the government. But I'll get back to you -- so keep thinking your useless, socialist thoughts of how you would make the world better by giving away someone else's money, and by not defending yourself against evil tyrants who want to kill you!

These two-bits evil tyrants have got more things to worry about than killing us. Did Saddam try to invade America? No. Was Saddam part of the al-quida plot of 9-11? No. Was Saddam part of any plot to blow up America? No. Saddam hated religious fanatics like Bin-Ladin because they would probably bring his dictatorship down. Two-bits dictators like Saddam have got to worry about staying in power; the last thing he would do is to provoke a large scale attack, which mean to end of his rule, his luxury palaces and riches. I hope people see thru the lies of the administration that Saddam was orchestrated 9-11 with Bin-Ladin. It never happened. Instead of focusing our resources on getting Bin-Ladin and winning the hearts and minds of Middle Easterners on the streets, we go on a silly adventure of hunting down a two-bit dictator.

Spoken like someone who knows exactly nothing about the subject at hand. Just the usual parroting of the classic anti-war, anti-Bush, anti-America liberal propaganda.

Truth be told, I also disagree with the manner in which the war in Iraq has been conducted. Were it that I had any say in the matter, we would definitely NOT have done a ground invasion. That was fool-hardy, and it took an administration of fools (all of whom I voted for -- twice) to do it. However, in spite of the military folderol which has been foisted upon the world by the Bush administration, some great good has come out of the Iraq conflict. A dangerous and strengthening tyrant, Saddam Hussein, was deposed, and the groundwork for a functional democracy now exists in Iraq. There have been many challenges since -- a strong insurgency, well supported by Iran. A resurgence of ancient feuds between the Sunni and snipe Muslim factions. And, of course, there has been the debilitating effect of the liberal, socialist Anti-American propaganda machine we all know as the popular media.

President Bush got one thing right -- we have to proactively fight the War on Terror, and the place to fight it is in the Middle East. Let's face it -- we were never going to get Bin Laden. In fact, he may already be dead -- he is known to have many "stand-ins," any of whom can be making the occasional videos which are showing up on Al-Jezzera. However, no matter where Bin Laden is, we have severely disrupted his organization, both in Afghanistan and IRAQ, to the point where he has been unable to commit any more attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11. I call that a good result.

The bottom line is this: We are faced with an implacable foe in the form of an idealogy. The goal of the militant, fundamental Muslims is to unite the world under THEIR religious banner. To do so, they will stop at nothing. We must fight them from now on, and without end. There will never be any peace with them. Only periods lacking in active conflict, which are intended to allow us to return to our usual state of complacency. Unfortunately, that will work. Nobody wants to live a life at war, but unless you can suggest some way to affect a global alteration of human nature, at war we will always be. We have a choice which side to be on -- that of the dominant winners, or that of the subdued losers. I chose to be a winner. If you want to lose, that's your choice, but keep in mind, you are enjoying the benefits of freedom by the sacrifices made by people who chose to be on the winning side. And while you may not value your freedom, I do!

And you, sir, are speak just like you're gonna lock-step off a cliff with Bush & Co.. People like you are still trying to confuse the American people by mixing Saddam and Al-quida. Al-quida is dangerous and strenghtening--yes. 9-11 showed that AQ is a powerful adversal. AQ is getting stronger; disfranchised Arabs are lining up to Jihad with AQ--some after seeing US troops occupying Iraq. However, Saddam was weak due to UN sanction, and not dangerous due to both the UN sanction and weapons inspection. Their weapon antiquated. Their WMD program effectively eliminated by the weapons inspection. If there are WMD hidden by Saddam, then I'd concede Saddam is an iminent threat and should be removed from power. However, there are no WMD. Nada. US troops have combed the country, and came up empty. So, please stop fooling yourself that the war in Iraq is making us safer. Everyday we learn more about the intelligence assessments done on Iraq before the war, and we're learning that before the war intelligence was sexed up to make Saddam seem a lot more dangerous than he really was and that bad intelligence was not just wrong intelligence, but deliberate misinterpretion.

"Functional Democracy"? You must be joking. The state is in a civil war with full blown tit-for-tat revenge sectarian killings on daily basis. How the three groups will ever reconcile after this civil war is over is beyond me. Maybe the country should be divided into three.

So, a conservative's answer to the capture of a mass murderer who is responsible for three thousand American lives is that he doesn't matter anymore so we him go free and that we'll hang Saddam instead.

I think conservatives just don't get that we're not in a conventional war with the Islamic terrorists and that traditional warfare will not take 'em down. Just ask Israel. Al Quida is not a country with a military you can tear down. AQ is more of an idea that has permeated across the Middle East. The only way to take 'em out is by destroying their training camps and winning the hearts and minds of the people in the streets thru good examples of ourselves.

You speak of Saddam and Al Quida as if they were separate things. I'm opposed to the whole lot, and we were very correct to take Saddam down, because he would have created a safe haven for the training and support of terrorist organizations throughout the Middle East. Saddam was a fundamentalist Islamic supporter of global terror. Perhaps you've already forgotten that he was giving $25,000 awards to the families of suicide bombers. No WMD's were found in Iraq because the UN-led weapons inspections teams came in with their white Land Rovers, took a few peeks around a few corners, all the while the convoys of Saddam's WMD stockpiles and their manufacturing capability was being discreetly sequestered in Syria and other places they weren't looking. Heck, we gave Saddam over a year of further playing around with UN resolutions before we actually invaded -- which, I reiterate, I wouldn't have done. I'd have just used Iraq as a practice bombing range for the Air Force and the Navy, while re-developing our human intelligence resources in the Middle East in order to make sure we were hitting the right targets. We would have also used propaganda to convince the civilian population that they could live in freedom by rising up against the Saddam regime. I would not have bothered "getting" Saddam any more than I'd bother "getting" Bin Laden. What we had to do was to punish the Iraqi people with enough Death From Above to make them collectively decide to turn him over to American authorities. My plan, which would have certainly resulted in casualties, would have saved most of the American lives lost so far, and reduced Iraqi civilian colateral casualties significantly.

Actually invading an enemy territory is something that just doesn't work anymore, I don't blame Shrub for not knowing that, but I do blame his generals for letting it happen. The insurgency and sectarian violence should have been predicted, and would have been the best reason for keeping U.S. ground forces out of Iraq unless and until the Saddam regime had fallen and a pro-U.S. regime was able to establish itself.

Yes, you may be correct that Iraq needs to be subdivided into three separate countries. Following my plan would have made that a viable option. However, if one of those new nations was found to be working in support of radical Muslim terrorist organizations, then they would have been more target practice for the U.S. Air Force and Navy bombers. We would have also let Israel get their licks in to the greatest extent possible.

You speak of Saddam and Al Quida as if they were separate things. I'm opposed to the whole lot, and we were very correct to take Saddam down, because he would have created a safe haven for the training and support of terrorist organizations throughout the Middle East. Saddam was a fundamentalist Islamic supporter of global terror. Perhaps you've already forgotten that he was giving $25,000 awards to the families of suicide bombers. No WMD's were found in Iraq because the UN-led weapons inspections teams came in with their white Land Rovers, took a few peeks around a few corners, all the while the convoys of Saddam's WMD stockpiles and their manufacturing capability was being discreetly sequestered in Syria and other places they weren't looking. Heck, we gave Saddam over a year of further playing around with UN resolutions before we actually invaded -- which, I reiterate, I wouldn't have done. I'd have just used Iraq as a practice bombing range for the Air Force and the Navy, while re-developing our human intelligence resources in the Middle East in order to make sure we were hitting the right targets. We would have also used propaganda to convince the civilian population that they could live in freedom by rising up against the Saddam regime. I would not have bothered "getting" Saddam any more than I'd bother "getting" Bin Laden. What we had to do was to punish the Iraqi people with enough Death From Above to make them collectively decide to turn him over to American authorities. My plan, which would have certainly resulted in casualties, would have saved most of the American lives lost so far, and reduced Iraqi civilian colateral casualties significantly.

Actually invading an enemy territory is something that just doesn't work anymore, I don't blame Shrub for not knowing that, but I do blame his generals for letting it happen. The insurgency and sectarian violence should have been predicted, and would have been the best reason for keeping U.S. ground forces out of Iraq unless and until the Saddam regime had fallen and a pro-U.S. regime was able to establish itself.

Yes, you may be correct that Iraq needs to be subdivided into three separate countries. Following my plan would have made that a viable option. However, if one of those new nations was found to be working in support of radical Muslim terrorist organizations, then they would have been more target practice for the U.S. Air Force and Navy bombers. We would have also let Israel get their licks in to the greatest extent possible.