Saddam should be restored as President of Iraq. For 30 years under Saddan Iraq was the most progressive country in the Arab
world. Now it is gatabage dump for American criminals.

"Saddam should be restored as President of Iraq. For 30 years under Saddan Iraq was the most progressive country in the Arab
world. Now it is gatabage dump for American criminals."

quotin dis

I agree that Sadamm should be restored. Allah Akbar!!

Sincerely,

John Murtha

Saddam is a great man! By his courage and defiance he is setting a fine example for his people on how to resist the invaders.

George Bush isn't fit to tie Saddam's shoes.

George Bush should be on Trail,he is the Invader in Iraq and is the biggest Warmonger,next to Stalin and Hitler.
Long live Ssddam.

["I agree that Sadamm should be restored. Allah Akbar!!
Sincerely,
John Murtha"]

You got to be some deranged republican neanderthal. How about going back to high school and getting yourself some education so that you don't sound so stupid and make such a fool of yourself. John Murtha is your superior, you coward, stupid moron. Stop listening to TV-talking heads like that dog Sean Hannity. Get lost you stupid, anti-Ameican, inferior Zionist. Now go back to your cheap sofa, eat your k-mart popcorn, put your head down, and listen to your idol jerry Springer and shut up.

["I agree that Sadamm should be restored. Allah Akbar!!
Sincerely,
John Murtha"]

You got to be some deranged republican neanderthal. How about going back to high school and getting yourself some education so that you don't sound so stupid and make such a fool of yourself. John Murtha is your superior, you coward, stupid moron. Stop listening to TV-talking heads like that dog Sean Hannity. Get lost you stupid, anti-Ameican, inferior Zionist. Now go back to your cheap sofa, eat your k-mart popcorn, put your head down, and listen to your idol jerry Springer and shut up.

long life sadam and long life palestina

The first few posters most be out of their minds, joking, or have some serioius long-term memory problems. Saddam was nobody's frind but his own; and his sons weren't much better. The only thing that motivated him wa staying in power. He's recently put on this facade of devout Muslim gentleman, but that's only because he thinks he can curry favor with the fundamentalist guerrillas running around causing havoc in the country. He was one of the biggest enemies of Al Quaeda and the rest before he lost power. He refused to publicly be seen in anything but civilain or military dress -- and portrayed himself as the anti-Iran, or the one man who stood opposed to the theocratic luncy of Iran.He did this, of course to curry favor with the US, and he was successful, too. But the man's a megalomaniac, and from the way he carries on in court -- as was the point of the entire piece here in the WP -- he clearly has lost touch with reality (if this was ever stable to begin with).

Why does this blog, one of the most thoughtful I've found dealing with world opinion, have some of the most idiotic commenters imaginable? Doesn't seem to match up.

nobody seemed to mind the slaughter of the shiites in the early eighties when saddam was our pal fighting the iranians.

Iraq was certainly invaded on the wrong reason. However, since it has been invaded and occupied, Sadam Hussein and his cabinet are not fit to be restored to their position as their commission of crime has been found out. So the process of estalishing democracy in Iraq be carried on in full confidence as it is far better to be in democracy than in theocracy for Iraq`and its population.

The first trial of Saddam is about his ordering state execution of a group of people of an organization who plotted to assasinate him (BTW, the newly elected Prime Minister is from the same organisation). Irrespective of Saddam's other crimes, is it not a crime against the State to assasinate its Prez? Isnt Musharaff's Government justified in trying all those who conspired to assasinate him in two quickly- following attempts. There is no hoo-hah about this latter trial or any comparison with the trial of people who tried to assasinate Jack Kennedy and Reagan. Whats the big difference?

Saddam crimes mostly consist of waging war against anti-American Khomeni at the behest of the United States and gassing Stalinist PKK who waged war against NATO country of Turkey. No wonder even Shiites want Saddam restored instead of being drilled in the head by Shiite death squads.

The Ba'athists in Iraq were progressive. They protected the rights of religious minorities whose members are now being systematically exterminated; they guaranteed rights for women (who had access to the highest levels of universities and government); and they were anti-fundamentalist and essentially pro-Western in outlook. In other words, they practiced most of what the USA *claims* to want for the ME.

But Saddam and the Ba'athists in Iraq had one unforgivable flaw. Unlike the feudal aristocrats in Kuwait or the royal families in SA and Jordan, or the dictator in Egypt, they were incorruptible; they couldn't be bought off to turn a blind eye to Israeli atrocities against the Palestinians. Therefore they had to be destroyed. And the Ba'athists in Syria will get the same treatment for the same reason.

Fortunately for the Israelis, they don't have to get involved in any messy business like this because they have their vassal states - the USA and Britain - who are only too happy to do the dirty work. And so with brazen, shameless lies, in violation of all international law and moral decency, they launched the war to destroy Iraq.

And the last great man in the play, Saddam Hussein, stands alone on the moral high ground; defiant, refusing to be intimidated by his accusers, the warmongers and bullies, torturers and lying hypocrites with so much real blood on their hands it will never wash off.

Long live Saddam Hussein. Long live free Iraq. Yankee go home.

How do you forget the Iran Iraq War, the invasion of Kuwait...Sadam was just like the Shaw of Iran, he keep a boot on the necks of the fundamentalists which the US liked but then he pulled a power play and tried to muscle in on US interests, namely oil in Kuwait, bad move. Now he is in a jail cell. Bush boys M.O.

Look a Noriega.

That simple. Unfortuntaly a more resonable approuch would have been to buy him out. He would have sold his people out if he was given a way to save face. Nature hates a vacume. What a mess.

The US invasion of Iraq was 1,000 times worse than anything Saddam ever did! I find it quite ridiculous for Americans to throw out these kinds of accusations against Saddam. You embarrass yourselves. Have you no shame at all?

The Iranian fundamentalists hated Saddam and the Ba'athists because they were secularists, and the Iranians were constantly interfering in Iraqi internal affairs by trying to create an uprising among the Iraqi Shiites. Saddam acted to defend his country, as a great leader should, and tried to put a stop to these attacks against the Iraqi state.

The Kuwaiti sheiks hated the Ba'athists because the Ba'ath were a people's party, and not good for filthy rich oligarchs. The sheiks refused to bear any of the costs of the Iran-Iraq war even though the Iraqis and stopped the spread of fundamentalism for them. And the Kuwaitis were stealing Iraqi oil by slant drilling under the border. ( And they're still doing it today.)

Saddam always stood up to defend his people and his country. The Anglo-American leaders on the the other hand, LIED to their own people and to the whole world, and without any provocation launched a war against a badly weakened nation that posed no threat to them whatsoever. And they did this for the most base and vile of reasons, namely to allow the Israelis to continue their theft of Palestinian land and water without having to worry about the support Saddam and the Ba'ath party was giving to the Palestinians to help them fight against their ongoing genocide.

George Bush and Tony Blair are the worst kind of human beings. They will kill and destroy and willfully create enormous suffering just to appease the Israeli lobby which keeps them in power. There's no other way to see it.

Long live Saddam Hussein. Long live free Iraq. Yankee go home.

Mao is known to have killed 100 million Chinese. Stalin killed over 20 million of his own people. The Shah of Iran and his secret police were no amateurs when it came to torture. Yet at one time or another, all three or their hand-picked successors were our allies, sometimes friends.

Saddam's killings seem relatively mild by comparison. However, too much water has flowed under the bridge to bring Saddam back.

This is regrettable at least from a perspective of national interests. Let's not forget, Saddam was a loyal US ally in containing Iran. As a secular arab in a region of fundamentalism, his presence fostered regional tensions, an essential element for control without the United States having to militarily occupy.

It was ONLY AFTER Iraq invaded Kuwait on August 2, 1990, that the United States turned against Saddam. Iraq then became as big a danger to U.S. interests as Iran.

Today, very few options remain available to appoint a Iraqi leader friendly to our national interests. Military occupation has become a necessity as our president pretty well acknowledged when he said that he will leave the decision for US troops withdrawal to a future president.

Before moralists start crying about the people Saddam gassed, they should ask if the death toll in Iraq three years after the 2nd Gulf War is any less terrible. It is estimated that at least 30,000 Iraqi civilians have died in the last three years. The prisons are at least as full today as during Saddam's rule and torture as commonplace. There is a civil war which cannot be stopped.

The case for this war was certainly no "Slam Dunk". No one in Iraq is rushing to greet us today as liberators, comments by Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld notwithstanding. As for the mission, I leave it for each of us to decide as we remember today those who have fallen, if it is accomplished.

> Today, very few options remain available to appoint a Iraqi leader friendly to our national interests.

What arrogance! You assume the right to appoint leaders for Iraq! And they must be friendly to American interests. What about leaders who will put the interests of the Iraqi people first, such as Saddam?

But as an American you wouldn't know anything about that, since your own leaders are all selected accordingly to their willingness to put the interests of Israel above all else, even above the what would be best for the American people.

>Before moralists start crying about the people Saddam gassed...

There's no evidence that Saddam gassed any civilians. It's just more lies from the American pro-war, pro-Israel media. But it's no longer surprising that Americans will believe anything they are told without even thinking to question the source.

And it's not 30,000 innocents killed by the invasion as you try to say. 18 months ago a study by scholars estimated 100,000 civilians killed as a direct result of the Anglo-American war of aggression; it's at least 200,000 killed by now and more being killed every day.

But yes, let's pause to remember the brave American soldiers who torture people for fun and who have now taken to murdering women and children in cold blood. Of course this is nothing new. You murdered Saddam's family, even his grandson, and where was the justification? Did you think they were hiding the WMDs?

You are a nation of war criminals no longer fit to share the planet with civilized people.

As to this bit of nonsense:

"people who tried to assasinate Jack Kennedy..."

The government pinned this murder on Lee Harvey Oswald, who was shortly thereafter murdered by Jack Ruby -- while in being transported in police custody (walking on the sidewalk in hand-cuffs). There was no trial.

To "Long-live-Saddam":

Apart from some of the more reasonable arguments you make, the idea that the United States and the UK are subordinate to Israel, or the the invasion of Iraq and the subsequent troop presence there is in any way related to the Israeli-Palesitinian conflict is totally ridiculous.

Iraq supported the insurgents in Israel and Palestine because (by paying the families of suicide bombers) as a way to gain some credibility and support from other Arab states in the region.
You yourself stated that he and his parties are secularists in a fundamentalist Islamic region.

I actually agree that the US was totally unjustified in going into Iraq in 2003 -- there was no justifiable reason for it, and any rational human-being woth any knowledge of the history of the region could have seen the fall-out. I aslo agree that Saddam was consdiered a good friend of the US as long as he fought Iran and kept the Islamists repressed. But move from there and say, now he is an enemy because SUDDENLY (as you make it seem) Isreal wants to take over Iraq? You must be joking!

Saddam was never a friend of Israel, nor has the US or Brittain ever flagged in their support for Israel -- or at least never, since they established their state and successfully fought off the invading legions of troops after they declared (with UN support, I might add) their independence. These trends have not chnged within the past 2-3 years. Support for Israel has been long-standing US policy. saddam's opposition to Israel had been long-standing policy throughout the 1980s and 1990s.

To be succinct, this invasionhas been about OIL, and not about ISRAEL. Saddam invaded Kuwait because of OIL. The US stopped him, and now has invaded because of OIL. The US Supports Saudi Arabai, even though the entire nation is vehemntly and venomously opposed to the USA becaue of OIL. Let's get real, this about economics for the US and the rest of the world, and not about ideology.

Your assertion that this has something to do with Israel and the Palestinians is absurd and even laughable.

It's a shame because the rest of what you're saying actually makes sense.

To "Long-live-Saddam":

You criticize me for saying "Today, very few options remain available to appoint a Iraqi leader friendly to our national interests".

All I state is reality. I am sure Iraqis would want a leader that represents their interests, and to some extent the US will accomodate. However, if oil is threatened or the leader is so charismatic (the John F. Kennedy type)that he may unify the middle east populance, then all bets are off. Like it or not, these are just facts.

I think you also mistake US interest in Israel. United States ties to Israel are not driven by "Zionist devils", but by the need for oil. Israel provides a strong regional military presence that helps to keep middle east in a state of hightened tension and conflict. This is absolutely essential if we are to maintain our influence with the various despots and semi-despots in the region.

I think once we are no longer dependent on Middle East oil, you will see a change in policy. The United States will come around to giving the Palestinians some sort of secure boundaries. But you must have patience. Having endured for so long, why not wait a little more!!!