Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article

from . Thursday, January 04, 2007 - 06:22 (Agree/Disagree?) http://world.mediamonitors.net/headlines/situating_the_death_of_saddam_hussein_in_new_world_order (reply to this comment)

from Shaka Tuesday, January 02, 2007 - 08:35 (Agree/Disagree?) LOL, I was just bored and being an ass when I said that, I didn't think it was worthy of being an article. Sorry for hijacking your thread Nancy. (reply to this comment)

from GetReal Monday, January 01, 2007 - 12:37 (Agree/Disagree?) does his death make you feel better about being in Iraq or does it really not matter. (reply to this comment)

From Shaka Monday, January 01, 2007, 13:54 (Agree/Disagree?) My workload is unchanged so I don't really care. Prick needed to die though. As far as feeling good about being in Iraq, I'll do what I'm told to do and go where I'm told to go as long as my paychecks keep coming. I'm a soldier, not an idealist. I have no love for Iraq or it's people though and hold the life of one American soldier in higher regard than every inhabitant of this shithole put together. (reply to this comment)

From AnnaH Monday, January 01, 2007, 20:01 (Agree/Disagree?) I remember how excited we were when Saddam was captured because Andy was over there at the time and we thought that meant things would get better. Ha! Boy, were we wrong. So I don't give a shit that he's dead, what's really going to happen?(reply to this comment)

From Phoenixkidd Friday, January 05, 2007, 10:21 (Agree/Disagree?) Anna you are right, we placed way too much emphasis on Saddam as being the problem, when really the problem was fractional and religious animosity within that country. Not to mention radical fanatical zealots of the Muslim faith. We are not dealing with World War II factions here, where we have one dictator, instead we are dealing with a whole unification of the Arab world against us. The problem is even more difficult considering how widespread the Muslim faith and their language is. By this I mean we have co-ops of sleeper cells whose members are comprised of countries all over the Muslim world, unified by 3 very strong unifying and cohesive elements, Language, Extreme Religious Faith and Hatred of the West. (reply to this comment)

From AnnaH Friday, January 05, 2007, 12:23 (Agree/Disagree?) Some related reading you might find interesting: http://www.exile.ru/2006-December-29/war_nerd_eulogy_saddam.html(reply to this comment)

From rainy Friday, January 05, 2007, 16:19 (Agree/Disagree?) Thanks for the link Anna.(reply to this comment)

From Friday, January 05, 2007, 11:59 (Agree/Disagree?) That's some close-minded thinking; 'a whole unification of the Arab world against us'. Come on, Phoenix! That's like saying all Jews are cheap or all Germans are Nazis. The Arab world, and the Muslim world for that matter, or very devided and have been for as long as history can remember. (reply to this comment)

From Oddman Monday, January 01, 2007, 20:40 (Agree/Disagree?) I do give a shit that he's dead. The USA captured him, handed him to his political enemies, and let them execute him. Whether he was guilty or not, this allows his sympathizers to argue that the trial was biased. It made a martyr of him. It would have been better if he had been tried at an neutral international tribunal.(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Tuesday, January 02, 2007, 06:50 (Agree/Disagree?) Saddam's supporters would have argued that any guilty verdict was biased no matter what the process. Conversely, any not-guilty verdict would have been decried as biased by his even greater number of enemies, again regardless of the process. Do not mistake indecision for neutrality - or either for justice.(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Tuesday, January 02, 2007, 04:39 (Agree/Disagree?) I agree, Oddman. I don't know why on Earth they let his political enemies try him. It sounds so stupid. Whatever happened to the International Criminal Court?(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Tuesday, January 02, 2007, 06:45 (Agree/Disagree?) And who exactly is it you're suggesting would have tried him? His political friends and allies?!? He was condemned for crimes committed within Iraq, against Iraqis - while there may be basis to bring him to an International tribunal, this was clearly a domestic issue. At the end of the day, there verdict was going to be one of two: guilty or not guilty - and if you think he was not guilty then you need your head examined! As far as the punishment administered, capital punishment is used in Iraq - as with many other countries - politicising the verdict/sentence (as you are doing) is what causes the problems, not the verdict itself.(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Tuesday, January 02, 2007, 06:54 (Agree/Disagree?) I was not trying to politicize the verdict/sentence. I just think if an ICC could have prevented arrogant Shiites that from politicizing the sentence. That's not to say they would find a verdict from the ICC to be fair, but that view would hold little legitimacy outside of the circle of Shiites. I agree, politicizing the verdict or sentence has caused problems. (reply to this comment)

From geo Wednesday, January 03, 2007, 13:06 (Agree/Disagree?) Ridiculous, because the ICC has absolutely no jurisdiction in this case. They would only be involved if the Iraq's where unwilling to try Saddam themselves, which clearly wasn't the case, and Saddam would have had to commit his crimes after he was already captured, which is impossible. In any case, international tribunals are always political in nature, he who would still be tried by his enemies and the verdict would be politicized. Of course you or people like you would still be whining. But in the end who cares what you think or feel about it, these decisions should continue to be made without considering the opinions and feelings of those who are not part of and ignorant of the process.(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Tuesday, January 02, 2007, 07:46 (Agree/Disagree?) So we undermine the validity of the Iraqi judicial process, and throw in that of their democratically elected government for good measure, and then wonder why the country has gone to pieces? It's not the soldiers that are flaming the fires of partisanism in the country - it's the bleeding-heart lliberals who throw around catch-phrases such as 'victors justice'. Ultimately governments and courts need to make decisions, and those are never going to be universally supported. However to publicly undermine the validity of the Iraqi courts is not doing anyone any favours, and is only going to exasperate existing discontent.(reply to this comment)

From GetReal Tuesday, January 02, 2007, 09:29 (Agree/Disagree?) I think you give the extreme left way to much credit . How many Arabs do you know that watch western based news? and even if they did compare the hateful anti western garbage that the government or in Iraq sectarian controlled media produces,the left is child's play. It's OK in that part of the world to call Jews Zionist pigs . many news organizations refer to terrorists and Saddam as martyrs ,any thing we do will not be appreciated .It's not realistic to blame all the worlds problems on America or "the west". But I'm sure the left would luv to think they are that important . (reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Tuesday, January 02, 2007, 09:35 (Agree/Disagree?) "How many Arabs do you know that watch western based news?" - a significant minority, if not majority! You've never seen a forrest of satellite dishes like a refugee camp - added to the way that their media regurgitates the parts that support their claims as further 'evidence', I'd say pretty darn close to total coverage.(reply to this comment)

From GetReal Tuesday, January 02, 2007, 09:57 (Agree/Disagree?) OK well i didn't know that but they probably watch what ever news suites there own America hating political view . Most of them have been taught from birth to hate America , you didn't have to watch the news when I as in the family to know that America was the source of all evil.(reply to this comment)

From Ne Oublie Tuesday, January 02, 2007, 10:10 (Agree/Disagree?) Most of them watch CNN, BBC World or EuroNews, which are the free-to-view news channels in English available in most of the region - I haven't been there since the English version of Al-Jazeera was launched, so I imagine that one gets a fair amount of viewers these days. As for having 'been taught from birth to hate America', how many Arabs do you know personally who confirm this theory? I can't think of a single one - of the hundreds I know - who would agree with you.(reply to this comment)

From GetReal Tuesday, January 02, 2007, 10:40 (Agree/Disagree?) I admit i don't know many Arabs but do know a few even in America that think Osma is a hero for sticking it to the evil USA. Instead of assuming they are total idiots I figured it wasn't their fault cause i remember when I thought the same way.What do you mean by the hundred of Arabs that you know wouldn't agree with me . Are you saying that ppl growing up in that culture are given a fair view of the big world ? I honestly don't think so but please knock your self out explaining the unreasonable hatred.(reply to this comment)

From Samuel Tuesday, January 02, 2007, 07:58 (Agree/Disagree?) Okay, maybe you're right. I don't know. I just felt that letting the Iraqis judge Saddam instead of the ICC was in a way catering to the Iraqis. In most cases, war criminals are brought before the ICC. Why is Saddam's case different? Not arguing with you, just putting my thoughts out there. (reply to this comment)

From please, samuel. enough already Friday, January 05, 2007, 18:39 (Agree/Disagree?) Catering to the Iraqis??? Are you out of your fucking mind? If he had been tried anywhere but Iraq, you'd be screaming that it wasn't fair that the people he oppressed for years didn't have a chance to condemn him themselves. You're so thick that you'd be unhappy either way. Would you rather he was still in power, commiting genocide on a whim and living in extravaggance while his country was starving around him? I know, I know, we shouldn't have gone to war in the first place, but you are one of the peons who agree with everything our fearless leader Bush says because he believes that he's got a mandate from 'God' or some such shit. Pretty much, you make snap judgments without thinking because you tune into too much Fox news and then you try to fit in by jumping on whichever bandwagon you think will get you the most votes of confidence on this site. Pretty much, you have no opinions of your own that you actually believe in outside of your religious ones, and they cloud your judgement on every other thing you think about. The purpose of this site is to move on from your personal demons regarding your upbringing in a twisted cult, not to win a popularity contest or prove how modern your thinking has become. You back track from your opinions and statements faster than Nick Saban, and that's no small feat.(reply to this comment)

From afflick Friday, January 05, 2007, 20:07 (Agree/Disagree?) Who's Nick Saban?(reply to this comment)

From Not really important Saturday, January 06, 2007, 12:01 (Agree/Disagree?) He's a head coach who was hired by the Miami Dolphins and signed a five year contract and over the last 3 months emphatically denied rumors that he was going to break his contract to take another coaching job at the college level. the day after the season ended he took the job he'd repeatedly denied he was ever offered or interested in, sparking an insane amount of vitrolic articles calling him a liar and denouncing everyone in his profession as a two-faced, conniving liar.(reply to this comment)