Wednesday, December 27, 2006


I have mixed feelings about Saddam's imminent demise.

On the one hand, no-one can argue with a serious face that the man is a first class monster. His crimes against his own people are on a moral magnitude with Hitler's. His war-waging with Iran and the classic annexation of Kuwait were bordering on lunacy. So, we exterminate him, yes?

Well, do we? It has long been apparent that Iraq is not capable of healing itself. Does his execution quell his supporters? Simple answer: no. As with any despotic regime, there are the next generation of despots sat in little despot green-houses being fed and watered ready for the opportunity to become Head Despot, through fair means or foul -- usually the latter. His death or where he is killed will probably not be announced until the deed is done to avoid any further insurgency.

Incidentally, I love that the word insurgent is a universally embraced term for utter balmpots. Six years ago, only crossword buffs like Stan and I had ever heard that word. Now, it's bar-room de riguer in any political discussion. Funny how we don't have insurgents here, just terrorists. There's a subtlety in nomenclature that should not be ignored for those of us with a lexicalogical bent.

Back on topic, insurgents will continue to insurge whether the moonbat EU gets its stay of execution or indeed the sentence is commuted to life. Uncle Sam will argue it sends a message to those who would aspire to fill his shoes, just as he argues that state-sponsored execution is a deterrent to wouldbe murderers -- and we all know that is a load of fetid dingo's kidneys.

Somewhere in the middle lies the right thing to do. But I'll be buggered if I know where. I would hate to be in the shoes of the person who finally makes a decision on this, for they will be recorded in history whichever way they sway and will be damned by 50% of the future for certain.

Don't misunderstand the point I'm making here. If you go out and kill 5 girls in Ipswich, I have no trouble in frying your arse. This is a moral dilemma in context; it's not one man, it's a nation.


Stan said...

We've got the guy. Let's put him somewhere secure and hold him there for life.

Anything else would be murder (but satisfying none the less).

Stan said...

Whoopsie. Too late

Kenny said...

I knew it.

I had a rant earlier and then went back on hitting the publish button; guess we're as bloody helpless and embarassed as we should be.

One man does not constitute a battle won.