Cancer and Saddam Hussein

by

It may very well be that the past reports of Saddam Hussein’s cancer are correct. If true it’s nothing that I’d wish on another human being (lymph cancer is a nasty disease), but it’s hard to call it a, well, tragedy in this particular case. I’m just grateful that we had this confirmed after regime change; if it had happened before, some people might have advocated relaxing/removing sanctions, thus compounding the moral cowardice exhibited by us* in the first place in using them as a substitute for toppling Hussein. I’m imagining us standing by as Iraq was handed over to Hussein’s sons in order to be literally raped and beaten some more, and I shudder. Oh, well, we dodged that particular bullet, at least.

And, yes, the plans for Hussein’s trial should proceed on schedule. After some thought, I’ve decided that if/when he’s found guilty we should go with the humane option and execute him: true, it’ll be less painful that way than letting the cancer metastasize its way through his body, but we’re not barbarians. Kill him quickly and be done with it.

Moe

*Specifically, George HFW Bush.

9 thoughts on “Cancer and Saddam Hussein”

  1. Wouldn’t it have been a whole lot better for all concerned if we knew Saddam Hussein was dying before we overthrew him? The perception that he’s ill or dying would likely have added to a perception that he was weak – and could have made toppling or neutering him easier, if it had to be done, or better yet, might have let us do without the hassle. Wait until he dies, then take control of the coup that replaces him. As long as we’re taking over countries, we might as well do it old school, CIA-in-Iran style.
    [Just out of curiosity – does the “F” in “George HFW Bush” stand for “F—–g”? Granted, when I want to indicate our 41st president, as opposed to his son, I just call him “George H Bush” – but I accentuate it as “George H Bush!”, sort of like “Jesus H Christ!”]

  2. “Just out of curiosity – does the “F” in “George HFW Bush” stand for “F—–g”?”
    Yup; his shafting of the Iraqi revolutionaries (and his idiocy at letting Buchanan, of all people, speak at the 92 convention) has raised my ire for a while now. Fragging apparachtnik.
    And I don’t think that a CIA coup in Iraq would have had the effect we needed over there: it looks like we’re getting out of that business, and I for one am happy to hear it. We were never all that good at it and it’s a distasteful practice at best.

  3. I think the idea that either of his sons would have actually taken over is assumming a lot about their own “real” power base. Sure, it is the assumption that was most likely to occur, but if you’re are going to preach about what would have happened try to keep in mind that a real power struggle and possible civil war was not as far off as might be assumed.

  4. Following pro-war excuses for the illegal invasion of Iraq does kind of give me whiplash, they shift back and forth so fast.

  5. If true it’s nothing that I’d wish on another human being (lymph cancer is a nasty disease), but it’s hard to call it a, well, tragedy in this particular case.

    Here’s something to ponder – given our knowledge of his medical condition, would you object to using medical treatment as leverage in getting Saddam Hussein’s cooperation?

  6. “Here’s something to ponder – given our knowledge of his medical condition, would you object to using medical treatment as leverage in getting Saddam Hussein’s cooperation?”
    Yes.

  7. If it can be used successfully to get him to give up the location of any of his supporters, any knowledge he has of the structure of the Baathist portion of the terrorists, possible WMDs (or what happened to them), the billions he looted, and/or what happened to the thousands who have disappeared, I’d say use it.

Comments are closed.