Tuesday, November 7, 2006
Saddam sentenced to death; the elephant in the room is ignored
Saddam was recently sentenced to death - as most of you probably already know. I am a bit late to the table here, but I have to say the following...
Saddam's sentence really will have little effect on the situation on the ground in Iraq NOW. He had no power by the time he was sentenced, and he leads no armies. It is a good thing that justice was done, but let's not fool ourselves into thinking that this will be a turning point for Iraq. Iraq is already gone. We already have installed a Shia dictatorship who abides by Sharia law. We are fighting and dying over in Iraq to support this. As per the usual, Jihad Watch explains things best. We are fighting and dying to protect a regime that is against our interests. Sad and sick. Zeyad over at Healing Iraq is distraught that Saddam is being sentenced at a time his country is in ruins. He is wistful for what was once his hope - to have Saddam sentenced at a time of a unified Iraq. Instead, he sees that the people celebrating Saddam's sentence are also celebrating Muqti Al-Sadr. Go read his commentary.
The elephant in the room at Saddam's trial is that Saddam, however despicable he was (and he was despicable), still was more aligned with US interests than the current monstrosity over there. This is the elephant no one is willing to acknowledge. No one is willing to acknowledge the Sharia law that governs Iraq, and that we are protecting a government much more aligned with the Iran than the US.
And so Saddam was sentenced to death - will this change anything in the slightest?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
This is what I said would happen all along. Iraq would turn in to a muslim theocracy.
Saddam was no friend of the U.S., but theres a good chance that anything that solidifies in Iraq will be MUCH worse.
Your observation is spot on. If I understand correctly, their is no time limit for the appeals process for Sadaam. I think he could continue to have judges and lawyers snubbed out for years making the chances of an actual execution extremely remote.
Either way, I don't think we could make the argument that Iraq was better off with him. Anyone who doesn't believe that his WMDs were relocated before the Americans arrived is sticking their head in the sand.
I'm inclined to agree with the fact that you can't just impose democracy on a nation like Iraq. Iraq as as nation was created by the old guard of Europe who drew up ad-hoc boundaries and carved up the Middle East into artificial nations. There is no unifying element within such a country. There are no traditions, no social structures, no foundations for a democracy to exist. Of course democracy will fail in Iraq.
Sara,
I think there is a good argument to be made that Iraqis were better off with Saddam in charge, and so were we. They are currently facing mass terror and are afraid to leave their homes. They never had that under Saddam.
Lexcen:
I agree about the democracy, but I also think the problem is Islam. Is there a single true democracy in the Muslim world? Turkey hardly counts. Many nations have artificial boundaries. India has artificial boundaries, Israel has artificial boundaries. Somehow democracy works there!
They are currently facing mass terror and are afraid to leave their homes. They never had that under Saddam.
Sadaam gassed his own people by the thousands. He cut their toungues out and removed their limbs. I'd say they were probably afraid under his regime as well.
""""Anyone who doesn't believe that his WMDs were relocated before the Americans arrived is sticking their head in the sand.""""
Is there any real evidence of that at all?
Surely if you KNOW they were relocated you should have SOME idea where they went, and if you do I'm sure the military does, so why haven't they gone after them?
I don't imagine they could have been relocated too far without anyone noticing, given that Iraq was not exactly able to move around without some small degree of scrutiny.
Post a Comment