Okay, I personally don't care if the guy's dead or not.
Sure, he was a tyrant who sent hundreds of thousands of Iraqis to their deaths, but he certainly was no threat to America, and he wasn't the only tyrant in the Middle East who probably needed killing.
Besides, he seemed to personify the Iraqi character: violent, dogmatic and without regard for human life. When he was their dictator, we heard nothing about civil war or other incessant Iraqi turmoil. He kept that Hellhole contained, for what it's worth.
Please note that George W. Bush, who set this whole thing into motion, has been curiously absent from the "Saddam is Dead" fray. He simply issued a terse, written statement about the execution, obviously trying to distance himself from the final outcome.
Yep, Bush once said of Saddam, "He tried to kill my Dad."
And now he's dead. Mission accomplished.
So...if the world is getting hot on executing leaders whose decisions and orders result in the death of his or her countrymen, what about a leader who attacks other nations unprovoked and causes the death of thousands of military troops and tens of thousands of innocent civilians?
Should Bush be tried for war crimes and executed?
Nah. That would be Barbaric.
Should Bush and his war cabinet be tried, and if convicted of war crimes, be put into prison for life?
That would suit me fine.
Criminals are criminals, and regardless of their national origin or political clout, if we tolerate their intolerance and support their dictatorial policies, we are no different from the bloody mongrels in the Middle East who simply do not value human life.
Bush is not quite as Barbaric as Saddam, but he sanctions torture and the wholesale slaughter of human beings as casually as he did when he was caught driving drunk those times.
Saddam, Bush, Cheney, bin Laden, the Saudi Princes--what a bunch of pricks.