And true to form, the Globe and Mail is full of commentators denouncing the verdict:
Joe Wallach from Russell, Ontario, Canada writes: It appears that appropriate justice is en route but, in retrospect from someone who has always supported the US role in Iraq and who now supports the Canadian role in Afghanistan, was it all worth it? Rioting and sectarian violence are out of control and Hussein, vicious and oppressive dictator that he was, somehow managed to contain all of that.
....
JD Wood from Toronto, Canada writes: What a total joke. History as viewed through the eyes of the victors. History will show that the true war criminal here is GW Bush.
....
Globular Cluster from Canada writes: I agree that this trial was a joke, a farce...
No leader is perfect. Do people have any idea what Saddam was up against? Look at Iraq now. If he didn't take matters into his own hands the country would have been as it is now, or worse. It is unfortunate that people were killed, etc. under his rule, but I do not doubt that he had the best interests of the majority at heart. He was brave to stand up to the US. Is it wrong to have an alternative opinion. Also, I am against capital punishment in all circumstances and this is by far a very ambiguous case for it. To the US government: 'He who is without sin should cast the first stone'. No government is without sin, more or less, in its goal to improve the collective quality of life of its people.
....
r Bartachoke from Toronto, Canada writes: That is so sad, I mean, Saddam has been a bit brutal yes. NOTHING as brutal as the bush Administration. Since the beginning of this war Bush has killed more civilians then Saddam, almost 7 times the civlian population. He was not the enemy of the states. He was a oil/grudge issue for a president that was not voted in. Such a bad guy - Free health care - Free education.
These same people would have denounced the verdicts at Nuremburg and praised the Nazis for bringing peace and order to Germany, a peace and order so blithely destroyed by Churchill and Roosevelt. After all, didn't people know what Hitler and his men were up against, etc., etc.
To call theses commenters useful idiots would be to credit them with too much intelligence: I'm not sure what use they'd be even to those whose crimes they defend.
Source: Globe and Mail
4 comments:
In general, I am against the death penalty. But I can think of few cases where it is more warranted than the case of Saddam Hussein.
The chief victor here is the Iraqi people. Saddam abused them, tortured them and killed them to suit his purposes, not theirs. They are good to be rid of them.
That said, the road to normalcy is fraught with peril. Saddam's followers want nothing to do with democracy. They want to restore their power through force, not democracy.
I feel sorry for Iraqis, but have no pity for Saddam. In his case, the death penalty is well deserved.
I don't see what Mr.Wallach said to inspire the hateful words:
"To call theses commenters useful idiots would be to credit them with too much intelligence"
He said that Saddam is deserving of justice (true) and that Iraq is out of control (true). What do you have a problem with here?
What do you have a problem with here?
How about this statement, which is the same old justification for tyrants everywhere of all kinds:
Rioting and sectarian violence are out of control and Hussein, vicious and oppressive dictator that he was, somehow managed to contain all of that.
Your reply gets three points knocked off for gratuitous use of the word "hateful."
Sure but... it's sad but true. Arabs seem unready for democracy. They need autocratic and brutal leaders to reign them in. They don't respect our nambly-pambly wishy-washy ways.
Hussein did brutally repress the Jihadists. So you have to ask yourself. What kind of IRAQ do you want? Since neither is a viable answer, we need some third alternative beyond the scope that the Americans can provide.
Post a Comment