Saddam does not need a trial. Lots of time has already been wasted, even a child knows Saddam is a tyrant. Everybody hates him. I think keeping him alive for so long has been a mistake. He is nothing but a traitor who killed his own people.

I heard he has asked Iraqis not to hate, and he seems to be moving towards his fate with courage and dignity.

Lets call him the "anti-American".

So, will people like Robert be sporting Saddam-chic shirts with the former tyrant posing ala Che before 2007 is over?
I think so.

SCIwuzzy- you have mostly disagreed with me, for once however I think we both agree that Saddam is really a worm who needs to be crushed.

Saddam was tried in an Iraqi court in Iraq by Iraqis. He committed crimes aganst his people and humanity. He was found guilty of those crimes. He is one man responsible for the deaths of probably a million people. He can die only once for his crimes. Let it be soon. If the Baathists want to fight, bring it on.

Guess these nitwit Iraqis forget the 100,000's of IRAQI's that he murdered.

OOOOooooh! The bad guys are going to "hit us". I am SO afraid!

Let the Shiites take care of these idiots.

I'm sorry, but that "courage and dignity" remark was a bit over the top for me. Saddam is a sociopath. Courage and dignity are traits possessed by people with a conscience.

Robert:

I heard he has asked Iraqis not to hate, and he seems to be moving towards his fate with courage and dignity.

Robert, you're making a huge logical blunder by choosing to lionize a mass murderer in order to attempt to make a political point here.

If you have read anything about Hussein, you'd realize that he'll say anything to get attention and sympathy.

Beside that, you're quoting him second hand, which is a decidedly weak tactic. At least furnish primary sources, or refer to them.

Lets call him the "anti-American".

Your suggestion here is that Americans have no dignity or courage, a point that is easily contested with millions of examples. Just ask and I'll supply you with a large list of courageous and dignified Americans.

I can understand the fact that you have disagreements with the Iraq war, or with the current state of affairs in general these days. God knows there is plenty to complain about. But do me and everyone else a favor: think about the arguments that you're choosing to present. At least do that.

SCSIwuzzy:

So, will people like Robert be sporting Saddam-chic shirts with the former tyrant posing ala Che before 2007 is over?
I think so.

It's the major pitfall of the left: expressing support for someone like Hussein or Guevara because they disagree with the right. Severe mistake there.

About as bad as someone on the right expressing agreement with a guy like Pinochet, just because he's a so-called conservative.

Dictators: whether leftist or rightist, they're all pretty damn bad.

"courage and dignity"

You mean the type he displayed as he hid in his rat hole?

In one of his recent essays, Bill Whittle commented about "Dope-fiending," the camoflauging fast-talk criminals engage in to cover themselves. Saddam is dope-fiending with his "courage and dignity" comments. Robert probably gives money to crack-fiends believing they're "saving for treatment."

MU: I am happy SH got a trial. It is a shame you consider it a waste of time. And also a sign that we should still be wary of your arguments.

Ryan and Marc: Ditto

For those that are threatened by essay tests or open questions, here are two multiple choice questions to consider:

1) The threats of attacks show the:

a) violent thuggery and abnormal deviant psychology
b) feelings of impotence and inferiority
c) immaturity
d) all of the above

of the Baathist Party.

2) Baathist threats of violence against the US:

a) demonstrate that Saddam is indeed a Terrorist
b) reflect Islamic psychology and culture
c) should be taken seriously, but with a grain of salt
d) all of the above.

And Oyster left a succinct pearl above.

Then we'll just have to go "Ethiopian" on your mangey asses.

I'm not lionizing Saddam. He was a terrible person, and us Americans are sometimes against terrible people.

Besides, these Baathist's threats are as empty as Bush's threat to win Iraq.

Robert, are you suggesting we are losing the war? If so, how? We certainly have not lost very many troops to enemy action. Not when compared with the number of fatalities on the hiways of California alone. The enemy has not gained any territory. You seem to be willing to let a violent criminal element, who are willing to kill the inocent, chase our troops out of a country they are their to protect until the legitimate government of that country can take over. If it were up to people like yourself, we would have relinquished our freedom long ago.

Robert:
1) Regarding your last comment:
a) the threats are not empty
b) your BDS is showing
c) your earlier comment did lionize SH
d) all of the above

2) BDS stands for:
a) Backpeddling Dumb S%$#
b) Bush Derangement Syndrome
c) Believes Democratic Shysters
d) All of the above

Robert, put the shovel down.

My bad about losing the war. I thought "we" was the U.S., not Iran.

Hey Robert:

I'm not lionizing Saddam. He was a terrible person, and us Americans are sometimes against terrible people.

Well, your comment certainly painted a picture of Saddam that I wouldn't agree with, considering what I have read about the guy. You might want to do that before making statements like that: read about his political history. Not a nice man, that one.

Look man, it's fine to disagree with the current foreign policies that we're engaging in; there are many aspects that I myself have issues with. I might have jumped down your back, as others here did, BUT I DID NOT IN ANY WAY MEAN THAT YOU SHOULD AUTOMATICALLY CONFORM YOUR OPINION to please others around you. But if you're going to present an argument, THINK about it first and maybe do a little research.

One of the major flaws that I see on the left is their support of anyone who challenges the right...often without a lot of critical examination.

Che Guevara is a good example. Ya, the guy was intelligent and all that, and he rode around on motorcycles in South America. But he also did some pretty nasty things in the name of "Revolution." College kids who lionize Che because they think his poster looks neat should do a little reading first before aligning themselves with someone like that.

One might have disagreements with certain US policies; that's fine, good, and something that's very healthy for our political atmosphere. But expressing support for some trash talking, two-faced dictator because he has issues with your country (and is at the end of his rope finally), well, that's not the smartest move to make IMO.

Zelsdorf:

Robert, are you suggesting we are losing the war? If so, how?

Well, in Robert's defense, we're not exactly winning the war are we? This is something that has been pointed out by the likes of Donald Rumsfeld, among others. That's why there's all of this talk about shift in tactics.

We certainly have not lost very many troops to enemy action. Not when compared with the number of fatalities on the hiways of California alone.

I have a feeling that our war effort isn't evaluated based upon a comparison to the highway deaths in CA, but nice try.

The enemy has not gained any territory. You seem to be willing to let a violent criminal element, who are willing to kill the inocent, chase our troops out of a country they are their to protect until the legitimate government of that country can take over. If it were up to people like yourself, we would have relinquished our freedom long ago.

The "enemy" hasn't lost much territory either. And they have certainly made strides in gaining political support.

There isn't really a legitimate government there yet pal, which is clear because it isn't able to sustain itself at present. The government that IS there was put in place by us, the United States of America. It hasn't quite become legitimate for numerous reasons, one of them being the fact that a foreign nation helped install it. It's a tough one to sell to the people of Iraq, the fact that the government in place is there to serve THEM.

If you think about it ZELSDORF, there might be many many Iraqis who think that "freedom" will come once terrorists are gone, AND once the large occupying force is gone as well. They might have some pride, and want to actually self govern at some point, without conditions. That would be something closer to freedom.