So Saddam was found guilty and sentenced to death, no real huge surprise there. The interesting part is that it was announced today so the day before the most important midterms in years, the news cycle will be all about Saddam's death.

 

To me it could go either way. It robs the Dems of a chance of a last minute push to get out the vote since the news outlets will probably be all Saddam all day. However, it's been pointed out (by a growing number of conservatives even) is that not only was life better for the average Iraqi under Saddam than it is now, but it's going to take a strongman in charge to keep the country together.

 

IMO, Saddam is a living embodiment of the bungling in Iraq: everything he was on trial for was done with Daddy Bush's knowledge and/or blessing (he told the Kurds we'd have their back if they rose up, and when they did we didn't), and his very existance is a reminder of a time when Iraq was under control. Him being in the news is just going to be a reminder to most folks that the whole mess really hasn't been worth it unless you're a CEO of an oil company.

The Saddam verdict will probably affect the elections somewhat, in the same way that the Osama Bin Laden tape coming out right before the '04 election probably affected the election then as well.

I'm not sure how much of an affect it will have.  I think the Osama tape was a bigger event, because it showed that our country still wasn't safe and the Republicans line at that time was that if you put a Democrat in charge, you'll be leaving the country open to terrorist attacks.  With Saddam being convicted, all it shows is that we took out a dictator, he was declared guilty after a somewhat lengthy trial, and we are still in Iraq seeing our solidiers getting killed.  No WMDs, no more evil dictator, yet October had the most US deaths in Iraq in 2006.  Will the average voter make that connection?  I'm not so sure, but that's the way I'm looking at it.

So Saddam was found guilty and sentenced to death, no real huge surprise there. The interesting part is that it was announced today so the day before the most important midterms in years, the news cycle will be all about Saddam's death.

 

To me it could go either way. It robs the Dems of a chance of a last minute push to get out the vote since the news outlets will probably be all Saddam all day. However, it's been pointed out (by a growing number of conservatives even) is that not only was life better for the average Iraqi under Saddam than it is now, but it's going to take a strongman in charge to keep the country together.

 

IMO, Saddam is a living embodiment of the bungling in Iraq: everything he was on trial for was done with Daddy Bush's knowledge and/or blessing (he told the Kurds we'd have their back if they rose up, and when they did we didn't), and his very existance is a reminder of a time when Iraq was under control. Him being in the news is just going to be a reminder to most folks that the whole mess really hasn't been worth it unless you're a CEO of an oil company.

 

If life was so much better for the average Iraqi, why are they dancing and singing in the streets over the announced conviction and death penalty?

 

You say it will take a "strongman in charge" to keep the country together, implying that you prefer a dictatorship to a representative Republic, I presume.

 

May I remind you that Stalin had Russia "under control," abetted by Kruschev, (The Butcher of the Ukraine) and Hitler had Germany under control, also. But Jews were being exterminated and in all, about 10,000,000 living souls perished so Hitler could keep the trains running on time. Stalin and Kruschev never got the trains running let alone running on time. And can you name the CEO of one oil company that has profited from the war and back it with proof?

 

If life was so much better for the average Iraqi, why are they dancing and singing in the streets over the announced conviction and death penalty?

 

 

Cause Saddam was a bastard? I don't think anyone really argues that. He did, however, keep the country together for 30-odd years which we're just now understanding was quite the task.

 

Under Saddam, Iraq was a secularist state where women could go to universities and not have to wear burkas. Now Iraq has Sharia law written into the much-hailed new constitution of theirs.

 

There's been reports issued stating that life was better for the average Iraqi under Saddam than how it is for a majority of folks now. That's not to say Saddam was a nice guy to have in charge, rather it's a sad statement of how we're doing things so ineptly that we can't even keep the lights and water on to the point that they'd want someone like Saddam back in charge.

 

 

 

You say it will take a "strongman in charge" to keep the country together, implying that you prefer a dictatorship to a representative Republic, I presume.

 

 

In this specific case, it seems to be the only workable option. Iraq is just not built to function as a representative Republic when the ethnic groups within would rather kill each other than share power in government.

 

 

 

May I remind you that Stalin had Russia "under control," abetted by Kruschev, (The Butcher of the Ukraine) and Hitler had Germany under control, also. But Jews were being exterminated and in all, about 10,000,000 living souls perished so Hitler could keep the trains running on time. Stalin and Kruschev never got the trains running let alone running on time.

 

 

Stalin, Krushev, and Hitler weren't in charge of the only countries in their region not run as theocracies either.  It's kind of an apples and oranges argument to play the "other dictators existed and did bad stuff too" card when you can argue that Saddam wasn't the worst guy in the Middle East (hello Osama!).

 

And can you name the CEO of one oil company that has profited from the war and back it with proof?

 

 

The four biggest oil companies recorded $23 billion in profit in the first quarter of 2005. I'd imagine the CEOs of those companies made a dollar or two off of it. It's not really a state secret that the oil companies are making money hand over fist at record levels. A quick Google search can find that out.