Previous   Next

Do you think Saddam Hussein’s execution marks a turning point in Iraq?

Asked at Borders, 700 N.H. on December 31, 2006

Browse the archives

Photo of Heather Sommer

“No, I don’t. I think things have deteriorated so much since the time he was captured that I don’t think it will have very much effect at all.”

Photo of Nat Evans

“Not exactly. They are going to mark it as a turning point or at least as an important step, but I couldn’t say if it will affect the war.”

Photo of Amanda Haas

“I don’t think it marks a turning point. I think once he was captured and incarcerated he was out of the way. Now there are a whole new set of problems to deal with.”

Photo of Cap Gray

“No. I think his fate was sealed when he was captured because of his past actions. I don’t think it has anything to do with the ongoing struggle. His impact at this point is negligible.”


jonas 10 years, 11 months ago

No, and I challenge anyone to produce a good argument on how it does.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 10 years, 11 months ago

Yea, it's a turning point-- things will go from really, really bad to really, really worse.

Richard Heckler 10 years, 11 months ago

Absolutely not.

The powers that be say the troops cannot come home or else Iraq will become chaos. What is it now? It is anarchy,chaos and a civil war. Not a good place to be for our troops which thus far 23,000 or so are either dead or disabled.

So long as James Baker III continues to push for privatization of Iraq oil does anyone expect the violence to simmer down? Then again THEIR oil is not for us to privatize so why would the Iraq patriots give up THEIR natural resources to a USA government that has killed 155,000 of their family members. Some estimates are at around 600,000 dead mideastern family members which begs the question how is Bush any different than Saddam as the killing continues?

Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan attacked the USA so why is Bush reducing their countries to rubble? Was Saddam worth ruining 23,000 american military families lives and the extraordinary cost of rebuilding two countries?

The question that has yet to be answered is how did 15 known terrorists who represented no country get by Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice on 9/11/01? They all died that same day. Why then did Pres Bush go on a killing rampage as the participating criminals were already dead?

oldgranny 10 years, 11 months ago

One could hope and pray that it would. But somehow I doubt it will.

beatrice 10 years, 11 months ago

Pilgrim, did you just give a "yada, yada, yada" to someone mentioning the dead and disabled American troops? WTF?!? It is one thing to still believe it was the correct thing to do to go into Iraq, but you really shouldn't dismiss the sacrifice of so many of your fellow Americans just because the number is an inconvenient truth. Please rethink that approach.

I certainly hope Saddam's death is a strong enough symbol to bring the waring factions together around a common cause of solidarity against oppressive rule, but I don't think it is going to happen. The Iraqi civil war is likely going to play itself out for many more years.

Happy New Years everyone -- be safe!

sunflower_sue 10 years, 11 months ago

turning point...I seriously doubt it. I was surprised with the swiftness of carrying out the sentence, but I don't think it will change things in Iraq.

Happy New Year's Eve ya'll! Be careful. Have a fantastic 2007!

sublime 10 years, 11 months ago

I think they should have shot him when they found him in that spider hole.....I think that the American justice system should implement hanging as a punishment.The crime rate would plummet.

Christine Pennewell Davis 10 years, 11 months ago

not a turning point but I would say a point of vindication for some of his victims families.

ms_canada 10 years, 11 months ago

Will his death bring about a turning point? Not really, but if anything, the suicide bombings and attacks by insurgents will worsen. I don't believe that many North Americans really know what the Iraqis are fighting about. The US and it's allies are caught in the cross fire between the Sunni and the Shia factions in that country. In fact in the whole of the Middle East the fighting is a religious war between fundamentalist factions among the Sunni and Shia. They hate each other with a frenzy and will not stop until one group is completely wiped out. These bitter feelings began a long time ago and in 680 CE They came to a head at the Battle of Karbala, Iraq. Shortly after Muhammad ushered in Islam, two opposing factions were born and they have been feuding ever since. Read a bit of Iraqi history and you will see that it will take a miracle to end this. You might think that this is just a small country and how can it disrupt others. But take into account the backing for these two groups. The Shia have the backing of Shiite Iran and Ahmadinejad and the Shiite Hezbollah of Lebanon and the Sunni have the powerful and wealthy Wahabis in Saudi Arabia on their side. This is much bigger than we in the West think. Don't hold your breath. And oh yes, oil is definitely involved here. Iraq can be divided into three areas, Sunni to the north west, Kurds to the north central and Shia to the south east. Where is the oil. Why in the south east. Do you think the Sunni insurgents are going to give that up?

Kam_Fong_as_Chin_Ho 10 years, 11 months ago

It will mark a turning point for those whose family members were tortured and killed by him; it will give them closure. Won't change anything for the typical American, though.

Bone777 10 years, 11 months ago

I think what Sadam has taught the world is that the only way to rule Iraq is with oppressive rule. These people hate and fight. They are constantly looking for a bigger enemy and if you decide to get involved, you become the focus.

Iraq was not our target, they just happened to be there when we needed something to shoot at.

Iraq = Cheney's hunting buddy.

sibkiss 10 years, 11 months ago

Ding Dong, the Witch (Dictator) is Dead! Who gets to bring the magic broomstick - to the great man behind the curtain? Which witch will be next on his list?

We need to march on Washington if necessary to stop this travesty of the internationalists wizards.

Purell 10 years, 11 months ago

logicsound04, Gee, after the 1993 attack on the world trade center, who should have taken care of it but chose instead of disable the CIA?

drewdun 10 years, 11 months ago

You can tell that the right-wingers on here like faceit and purell are really smart.

BunE 10 years, 11 months ago

Saddam, Hossein former Ally of the US, hung by the neck until dead.

$500 billion to invade a country hobbled by sanctions and a number of wars, what do we get? Televised executions of some old guy that tried to kill the president's dad.

Am I glad he is gone? For the Iraqi's sake, sure, but lets face it. This means nothing.

When are we going to see $500 Billion spen on our infrastructure? Social Services? The Arts?

The measure of society is not how efficiently we kill and destroy, but create and inovate.

Oh, and you freaking righties need to let the whole Clinton thing go. Hummers are good, wars are bad.

thunderbuns 10 years, 11 months ago

BunE: "wars are bad".

Does that include the Revolutionary War in which America obtained Independence from England?

Yes or No.

elph 10 years, 11 months ago

Saddam was never a threat to the US. His life or his death had nor will have no effect on either the outcome or the policy of handling the situation. He made some really stupid decisions that got him killed. However, it is the US's responsibility to continue in Iraq. They invaded and destroyed a sovereign nation and it is their duty to stay and rebuild her (they owe the dead innocent civilians that), as they did Japan and Germany.

Bob Forer 10 years, 11 months ago

Merrill, you are wrong about one thing. The Taliban, , who controlled Afghanistan at the time we invaded, gave comfort, assistance and support to the terrorists who murdered around three thousand of our countrymen. There was justification for a retaliatory attack against them. I couldn't agree with you more on everything else you state.

jonas 10 years, 11 months ago

"Posted by thunderbuns (anonymous) on December 31, 2006 at 6:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

BunE: "wars are bad".

Does that include the Revolutionary War in which America obtained Independence from England?

Yes or No."

Well. . . if by yes, you mean that a small populace of people is forced to resort to violent means in order to protect their representation, due to the arrogance of a monarchical power unwilling to reliquish its hold on a colony that is perceived as valuable, forcing its people to revolt in order to gain a liberty that they should be, by birth, entitled to, then, yes, it is rather sad.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.