Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Australian Politics » Swinging with Saddam, ten years on

Swinging with Saddam, ten years on

Some readers may find it surprising that I list Orwell as an inspiration on the sidebar of this blog, after all I am one of those “evil conservatives” who wants to see the working class exploited by the rich according to their narrow view of politics. Sadly far too many minions of the left find it hard to believe that I do not subscribe to their personal understanding of political morality. Thus the most common position on the war in Iraq is to continuously denounce it as  folly and as the cause of the suffering of the Iraqi people. Our own regular “Richard Ryan” is forever insisting that George Bush and John Howard are “war criminals” for daring to remove the tyrant Saddam Hussein by force of arms. You could be forgiven for thinking that Hussein was anything but a blood thirsty killer of his own people if you were to listen to the likes of our Richard who only counts the dead since the second war in Iraq and ignores the millions killed before. Thankfully there is  one on the left who are far more pragmatic about the necessity to remove murderous tyrants on occasion:

click for source

click for source

As Cohen says in his piece its fair enough to be critical of how the war was run and how the occupation could have been less bloody but we should just never lose sight of just why Saddam was such a manifestation of evil and why removing him was a moral thing to do.

Cheers Comrades

Saddam's cat likes to play

Saddam’s cat likes to play


  1. Brian says:

    Well I wouldn’t consider myself to be quite as radical (or loopy) as Richard, yet I still believe the second Iraq War was both illegal and a mistake. I’ll outline the reasons why:

    There was no evidence that Saddam had connections to al-Qaeda or 9/11.

    There was no concrete evidence that Saddam was producing or was likely to produce WMD.

    Saddam in 2003 was no worse a tyrant or a murderer than he was in 1983, when the US was bankrolling him and selling him arms – to kill Iranians.

    Saddam’s political position in 2003 was weaker than during the first Gulf War in 1991.

    There was no international consensus for the second Gulf War, only the US, UK and a bunch of their acolytes.

    I think it’s quite clear that the 2003 war was more about oil and geopolitical positioning than it was about distributing justice or rescuing the Iraqi people.

  2. Richard Ryan says:

    So True, as for Howard, he will pay for his war crimes, as it should be. The US supported and trained Osama Bin Laden and called him a freedom fighter, when fighting the might of the Russian army. The Three Amigos, Bush Blair and Howard should face the world court for war crimes for declaring war without UN sanction. Unlike Iain, America does not speak for me, the war was not for the removal of Saddam, it was to find weapons of mass destruction, Howard told us that before the invasion, notice Iain and his war supporters, now have changed the tactic, since no weapons were found, to the removal of Saddam. But on the brighter side it is nice that the original inhabitants of Australia, have got the vote in the deep south(QUEENSLAND).

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: