Saddam was always going to get the death penalty. There was never any doubt, although I was hoping that perhaps he would get the same fate as Rudolf Hess spending his whole life in Spandau(?) could have been arranged.

Saddam made three mistakes when playing brinkmanship with the US.

First mistake was not pulling out of Kuwait when he was given the chance. He seriously underestamited the US resolve.

The second was playing silly-buggers with the UN Weapons Inspectors. As it turned out Iraq had nothing to hide. The Inspectors should have been given free and easy access.

The third was underestimating how stupid GWB is.

The loss of life and destruction in Iraq is a terrible tragedy, and putting Hussein to death won’t make any difference to the ongoing killings and disorder. Bush has really dug himself and America into a fine mess. But what really astonished me over the weekend were remarks by Howard over whether there should be an early withdrawl of troops. He said words to the effect that it would be “a blow to US prestige”. Was Howard serious? What is more important: US prestige, or putting Iraq on a stable footing so Iraqi people can get on with living?

Of course he was a scape goat - he was a bad man but killing him willnot make one iota of difference - the announcement of hisdeath penalty not long before the US mid terms - that looked like a bit of stage managed drama - didn't seem to work any either.

If there was any justice in this world Sadamm and George W would be locked up together in one cell.
Poetic justice is the name.

I am going to be accused of stirring the pot here, but I have to ask if Saddam was as bad as they say... I mean really.

Look, no doubt he was a murdering swine, but we have all been lied to so comprehensively over the last few years. Are they lying about the extent of this too? Maybe the story of his crimes is not so awful as the propagandists would have us believe.

There are some things that you are not allowed to bring up in polite society. There are many things that are carefully omitted from the TV news and commentary. That always makes me wary.

It is the greatest pity that SH was not publicly tried in an open court. We all need to know what creates and sustains the SH's of this world, otherwise history will go on repeating.

If I have given offence to any of the victims of those times - forgive me.

Saddam was the only man who keep Iraq under one banner.He was an American generated dictator.The US wanted a balance of power in the Middle East so that world oil supplies would be secure at cheap prices.

If a cartel of Middle East countries fixed the price,then they could hold the world to ransom.Hence the US had a policy of divide and maintain competition.

Saddam kept a balance of power in the Middle East by keeping Iran and the other oil producers on the back foot.Now Iran is the emerging super power with one of the largest best trained armies in the world that the US is afraid of challenging.By getting rid of Saddam they have empowered Iran who could unite all the oil producers and make our lives very unpleasant.

Yes to a large extent,he is the scape goat for US incompetence.There are plenty more like him in Iraq,and uniting Iraq without a ruthless dictator will be nigh on impossible.

The US has made a mess if Iraq and created millions more who hate the West.Bin Laden must be laughing his head off because Bush and Rumsfelt have created more terrorists than Osama could have produced in his wildest imagination.I don't think the Muslims will accept democracy since it weakens their religion.They have witnessed the demise of religion in the West and there is no way the Mullahs will relinquish their power.

How do the US extricate themselves from this almighty mess?

I honestly do know enough about Saddam's reign. Were the Iraquis happy then or now? surely it was all to do with keeping the oil and it's price up. I am truly appalled that both political parties supported the invasion.

Narcissist - I agree with most of what you say, though as for Saddam playing 'silly buggers' with the weapons inspectors, you have to take a look at his position.

He was surrounded by countries and factions he considered hostile - not the least of which was Iran, which has been wanting a stronger sphere of influence in Iraq for quite some time.

Now hypothetically, if Hussein had rolled over, confessed to having no WMD, or even that is 'imperial guard' was not nearly as well trained as the rest of the region believed, what outcomes could he expect?

We know he didn't make the right choice - fair enough. The thing is, he was stuck between a rock (the US) and a hard place (Iran). Either way, the Americans were forcing his hand and if they hadn't invaded, he would have been toppled from within - a prospect which probably seemed even scarier than a US led invasion.

Reading between the lines of this article and others, it seems pretty clear the US have used whatever pretext they can use - or even manufacture - to have a presence on the ground in Iraq. Not surprising, considering the importance of the region to the US economy.

It's a sad fact, but 'collateral damage' only seems to count if the victims are affluent western citizens. Otherwise it's merely an unfortunate, yet inevitable result of 'bringing freedom' to the area.

Seriously though folks... after the whole mossadegh affair, the Iran-contra scandals, desert storm and it's ill fated sequel... does anyone still honestly belief this war was waged for altruistic purposes?

I'll admit - the US wanted to install a western friendly democracy, and improve the standard of living for Iraqis, though it was at the expense of sovereignty of their own oil prices.
Certainly, freeing the Iraqis from the yoke of oppression wasn't at the top of the US priority list when they were figuring out how to launch this invasion.

TurnRightThenLeft - Agree with your views. Its very interesting how the US appeared to hold back from warning off Iraq in the days before the Iraqi 1991 invasion of Kuwait.

Chris Shaw - Yes, Saddam is not a Westerner so he should be given the benefit of the doubt. Should he? Maybe he is a victim of (world) society ... ;-)

Arjay - Don't know where you got the idea Iran has a powerful army (airforce or navy) eg few modern tanks or servicable fighter aircraft. For a country its size its forces are weak. Its neighbour Pakistan's or Israel offensive forces are several time larger. Most of Iran's military manpower appear to be tied down for internal security and border defence duties.

One reason Iran is taking the nuclear weapons path is because of its weakness in conventional forces.

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/

.. and the answer to Saddam? Bush and Co. inflict even more harm on the Iraqis. The logic of defeating an 'anticipated' crime (that has not taken place) with the real crime itself is asounding! How can we justify this war when we have done the very thing Saddam was accused of to justify the waR?

The fallout from the Iraq War has only just commenced, and it will continue for many years beyond the eventual withdrawal.

The timing of events has been extremely bad for US Republicans, who will come to regret their presidential win in 2004. Democrats will have two years to rake Bush over the coals and despite the dropping of the phrase 'stay the course', Bush has no other political option other than to do just that.

Republicans can look back at Vietnam and agree that communism was a real and ongoing threat to the United States, which (they believe) was eventually crushed during the Reagan presidency.

There will be no such solace with Iraq. Eventually, it shall dawn upon us that the Bush-led US response since late 2001 has been and continues to be beneficial beyond measure for the Al Qaeda movement.

The execution of Saddam Hussein and more symbolically, of his defence lawyers, will be one of those benefits. US rejection of the International Criminal Court was a generous gift to the terrorist movement in general

Plantagenet,Iran has 545,000 full time personal.They can mobolise a million reserves at will.It is not the rockets or shock an awe that counts,but the number of trained dedicated fighters you can muster on the ground.I was referring to their on the ground defensive capabilities that the US would not dare attack using conventional weapons.

Arjay

You've caught me on one of my pet topics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_size_of_armed_forces is a rough indicator that the US exceeds Iran in numbers of personnel and weapons in every department. But technology, command, control and communications appear to be the key ingredients these days - and in those areas the US is also way ahead.

If the US is aiming to take out Iran's nuclear facilities the most likely way to do this is by surprise. I think this mainly means air and missile strikes - areas where the US is strongest.

The US would have problems if it attemped a broad followup advance into Iranian territory and an occupation. The problem would not be conventional Iranian forces, who could be destroyed out in the open (just as the US destroyed Iraqi forces in 1991 and 2003) - the problem would come from insurgents in massive numbers fighting the US.

I think the Iranian military would don insurgents clothing fairly quickly to save their own lives and fight another day. As well Iran fielding many more insurgents than Iraq there would be broader civilian support for insurgents in Iran ie. (unlike in Iraq) fewer insurgents would be fighting each other for sectarian reasons.

So I reckon the US would go for an air approach and restrict any land attacks to special forces raids on several key nuclear installations. For more see http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/2006/01/bombing-iran-where-how-and-when.html

Regards

Pete