Silenced Majority Portal:

Curiously close to November's election Saddam Hussein was sentenced to death. Yesterday's papers confirmed that he had lost his appeal and was ordered to be hanged within thirty days. Today while I was at the Olympic CNN reported that Saddam Hussein had, in fact, just been hanged.

This is one of those times when I know I have a very unpopular opinion. Every major news source is giving the execution overwhelmingly positive reviews. Every style of American politician, including members of my party, the Democrats, such as Joe Biden, the man I routinely say "oughtta be our next VP," is blabbing about what a good day this is for the Iraqi people and how he experienced the type of fair trial he never gave his own people.

I am already opposed to the death penalty, even in the most extreme cases like international terrorism and killing a police officer, which I know puts me in a small minority. I do not believe it is a deterrent, and I think it's the sort of savage, antiquated thing that Americans ought to be "better" than. Nevermind that death sentences cost much, much more than life sentences. Executions are "Saddam" style policy. I realize that this is not an American but an "Iraqi" (as if Iraq is a legitimate country) execution. I realize that Saddam Hussein has been pretty much responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths.

But he was also a former head of state. Every decision any head of state makes is amplified. Heads of state tend to be responsible for large numbers of deaths. That's one of the unfortunate things about being a head of state. And I believe that any head of state or former head of state is entitled to a certain amount of dignity. The term "fair trial" is relative. When the famously flashy dresser was captured, he was never so much as given a decent suit to wear. Did he act nutty in court? Boy howdy did he. Keep in mind that, after hiding for months, he had not exactly had, say, adequate nutrition. Keep in mind that the guy was pretty damn nutty in the first place.

But is this a good day for the Iraqi people? Heavens no. Can you say "retaliatory action?" Americans love a boogieman, and Saddam Hussein was the perfect boogieman, complete with mustache. He looked like a movie star villain. He may as well have been Dennis Hopper. Is the nonexistant country of Iraq going to be a better place because its former dictator is dead than it would have been if he were living in prison for the rest of his life? If Saddam had been blown up in one of his palaces, as his sons were, that may have been self-defense. This execution was completely unnecessary.

So "justice" will come to the victims and families of victims of Saddam's 1983 mass-execution order? What about victims and families' victims of every other one of Saddam's many crimes against humanity that he will never be tried for now because he is dead? That's "justice?" The leaders of the Hutu movement that murdered over 1 million Tutsis in Rwanda were imprisoned, not executed. These people were, in fact, much worse than Saddam Hussein.

And for all of the terrible things about Saddam Hussein, he did preside over the most stable period in Iraq's history. Ever. Period. In 1983 when said "crime against humanity" occurred he was an ally of the US. We sold him weapons, in fact.

Yes, invading Kuwait was a pretty stupid move on Hussein's part, but know who initially gave him permission? The US! Know why Hussein invaded Kuwait? Because they were stealing his oil using the practice known as SLANT DRILLING! Kuwait is not the "tiny, helpless nation" George H W Douchebag Bush Sr claimed it was in his demeaning 1990-or-91 address to America! It is a filthy rich oil nation.

Nevermind "cultural differences!" The Islamic world involves a culture of exaggeration, of flamboyant talk. When a middle-eastern leader says "we will drink the blood of their children" they are just talking colorfully. Know how boxers say they're going to kill their opponent yet they never, like, do anything other than bite off their ears? (And, for one reason or another, boxers seem to be attracted to Islam.) The threat of US intervention in the 1991 Gulf War didn't seem immediate. As a matter of fact, George HW Bush released some kind of press conferency video that was nothing but THE DORK FISHING IN MAINE! What he meant by this was "I'm not worried about you fuckers, because we'll kick your ass." What Iraqi leadership perceived, on the other hand, is "We're looking the other way! Seriously! Uh, yeah, we're FISHING!"

And so war supporters will be able to say, "If Al Gore were President, Saddam Hussein would still be in power, but now the evil man is DEAD!"

Know what killed hundreds of thousands more people than Saddam Hussein? Starvation from post-Gulf War sanctions brought on by the US! It may not seem as brutal as a mass execution, but for one reason or another, we never think straight when it comes to large numbers of dead people. Ever notice "the apparent lack of importance of death of brown-skinned people" to Americans? Even anti-war types spread all kinds of "number of American death" information in their propaganda, never paying attention to the much larger number of Iraqi deaths.

So what's my point? My point is that we live in the real world, not a Disney movie with classic flamboyant mustached evildoers. September 11, which was certainly a crime against humanity and a terrible thing, didn't happen because terrorists "hated our freedom." All evidence suggests that it happened because, after the first Gulf War, we put a bunch of bases on Saudi holy land and wouldn't budge! We responded by going to war with Afghanistan, which is not Saudi Arabia, and eventually Iraq, which is also not Saudi Arabia, looking for "weapons of mass destruction." No, I am not suggesting we go to war with Saudi Arabia. That would be nuttiest of the nutty. Maybe if we didn't make friends with people like Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Ladin in the first place and then turn against them when they were no longer convenient friends with us they wouldn't turn against us. I have barely bothered even mentioning "oil" because it is so obvious.

So may of the world's problems would be solved, or at least improved substantially, simply by us not being beholden to the oil special interest. We need a certain amount of petrolium for plastic and other important things, and there is no reason why we ought to be fueling vehicles with it when they can be fueled from ETHANOL, which can come from corn, a very renewable crop, in Iowa, a place that doesn't have a bunch of religious and tribal lines that make no sense to Americans and cause world problems. And it's not just ethanol -- electricity, biodiesel, hydrogen cells, whatever. If Chevron, BP, ExxonMobil, etc. don't jump on board the technological innovation train that is "tomorrow's energy economy" they deserve to go broke.

And, yes, I support the "three separate Iraqs" idea that anyone who's anyone seems to support these days.