Saddam Executed

It means Iraq lost the only person who was able to control that nonsense going on over there. Brutal and sadistic as he was he kept a tight reign on politics over there. it was one of the major reasons why we supported him before Desert Storm and the reason we kept him there afterwards. I have a feeling that the only way the new government is going to keep control is to rule the country in the previous way. Otherwise, Iran has a new addition to its house and we are totally fucked.

My question is why is Fox News the only network covering this story? CNN is neck deep in James Brown's funeral, as is MSNBC. Even CNN Int'l is not covering it right now. Please don't make me watch Fox to get my international news!

As for Iraq, we should turn the Shiite and Sunni areas over to Iran and Syria, respectively, who could easily do a far better job of running it than we have been doing. [-(

Flexichick wrote: I hate that you have to work so hard to get international news - even with 200+ channels. I try watching the BBC or at least CNN International, but end up reading most of my news online.

I'm trying to find more on the bombing at Madrid's airport (I travel there often and also have a friend who works for Iberia - which I think is the specific terminal where the bombing happened), and I can't find it on TV.

I know all of the major networks covered Saddam last night, but I agree that it should be covered much more than the James Brown funeral.

Our media sucks - freedom of speech and yet they all say almost the same thing.

seriously. I'm flipping out about our clients in madrid. this is NOT COOL. I hate the fuckin' news in this country.

The BBC website is the best place to get news.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6219431.stm

I'm against capital punishment unless you have a situation in which a Freddy Krueger prisoner murders other prisoners and prison guards within the prison system.

If killing is wrong, it does not make sense to repeat the crime by killing the killer.

How can humans without god-like knowledge make god-like decisions about terminating the life of another born, breathing human?

Idlewild wrote: It means Iraq lost the only person who was able to control that nonsense going on over there. Brutal and sadistic as he was he kept a tight reign on politics over there. it was one of the major reasons why we supported him before Desert Storm and the reason we kept him there afterwards. I have a feeling that the only way the new government is going to keep control is to rule the country in the previous way. Otherwise, Iran has a new addition to its house and we are totally fucked.

Right on the money, Idlewild. But don't you think that if the new government EVER manages to govern and they end up employing Saddam's methods, it was pointless to remove Saddam in the first place? Unless you factor in our govt wanting to deal with a puppet regime of their liking rather than a crazy, violent, defiant badass?

Also, Saddam had the only truly secular govt in the Middle East. I doubt that the new Iraqi govt can EVER get anything done on its own, let alone without the support of the major religious contingent. Not exactly fans of ours, that lot.

In the same time it took during WWII to fight through Northern Africa, the beaches of Italy and France, and liberate Western Europe, we haven't been able to secure the highway from the airport to Baghdad. Basically, we went into a fucked up situation and made it worse. And 3,000+ of our soldiers--plus countless Iraqi civilians--will have died in vain.

The situation in Iraq is so fucked up that there is almost nothing to discuss of any merit. There are literally no good solutions available to the U.S. It appears that Bush will continue the quagmire for his last two years, but the national mood has decisively shifted towards bringing the troops home. Strategically, this is a very, very risky move, but I agree that leaving them there is even more risky and anyway is clearly ineffective, at a massive cost of money and lives. Our only hope, perhaps, is that for all the talk of a civil war, the Shia are overwhelmingly dominant and appear to have finally organized. They furthermore control the govt and the oil-rich areas, and will certainly be backed by Iran. Perhaps then whatever civil war occurs will be short and the Shia will wrest control of most of the country and establish some kind of heavy-handed security or quasi-independence, leave the Kurds to themselves, enjoy their oil wealth and become a solid Iranian ally. I personally won't shed a tear for the Sunnis--their 'insurgency' is the equivalent of the KKK, trying to reestablish minority apartheid rule over the bulk of the country.

Or, perhaps Syria will step in to back the Sunnis and an all out Persian-Arab war will ensue. While our enemies massacre each other, oil prices will soar to well above $100 a barrel, spurring unprecedented innovation in alternative energies, freeing America from its "addiction to oil" and solving global warming all at once. Ah, a man can dream, can't he? What can I say, scraping the barrel for silver lining is the only way I avoid depression.