Skip to main content

The end of Saddam - the beginning of the end?

It couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.

A man with the blood of hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, on his hands. Unrepentant to the end, defiant, assured of his right to torture, gas, and put into meat grinders anyone who disagrees with him, who vigorously exercised that right unparalleled in the history of the late 20th century.

Yet liberals the world over, particularly in Europe, decry the execution of Saddam Hussein.

These misguided souls see no difference between the heinous, unjustified acts of Saddam, and the societal self-defense that was his execution.

They see no difference between initiating an act of violence, and responding to that act.

A proper system of justice exists to ensure that a criminal cannot repeat his acts. The response by society increases in proportion to the potential future threat that criminal poses to society.

The people of Iraq know how dangerous Saddam is, by his history, even if the many Saddam apologists in Europe prefer to bury their heads in the sand. He ruthlessly slaughtered the people he claimed to lead. He never in his entire life expressed a single moment of remorse over these murders. And by this they knew that if it were ever in his power, he would do so again, gladly, and without pause.

For their own self-defense, now and in the future, the only proper response to a man like that, is to permanently end his ability to wreack havoc.

Good riddance, Saddam.

But I fear for Western civilization, whose moral decay has progressed to the point that the right to self-defense, to deal swiftly, harshly, and permanently with psychopaths and death-worshipping criminals, is but a memory. What portent is this, for our culture?

To all you liberals out there who would have kept Saddam alive. What do you say to all his victims, hundreds of thousands of them who had their mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters taken away from them? You ask them to keep him alive, in prison, keep him fed and warm, a roof over his head, entertained with television and books, clothed in the fine suits we always saw him wearing? For his victims to toil, pay taxes to the government, to keep him alive? Is that your justice?

The only valid objection to the death penalty is not that it is "unjust", it is not the moral relativist nonsense that "it lowers us to his level". The death penalty must be applied only sparingly, because we are capable of error. We cannot undo it.

However, if ever there was a case where the crimes and the guilt were perfectly clear, perfectly blatant - this was it. There is no doubt whatsoever that Saddam is a maniacal, murdering sociopath.

Therefore, there is no doubt whatsoever that his final theatrical performance - hanging from the neck until dead - is precisely, and incontrovertibly, the right thing.


Popular posts from this blog

Murder in the US

In 2011, I calculate the overall US murder rate as 4.6 per 100,000 population.

But if you recalculate this, and assumed that black men murdered at the same rate as everyone else, the overall rate would drop to 1.9 out of 100,000 population. That would give the United States the 147th highest murder rate in the world - or, the 60th best.

The insane disproportionate murder rate among US blacks is why the overall US murder rate seems so high.

I don't understand why liberals refuse to talk about this. I don't understand why blacks refuse to talk about this. Blacks are just as often the victim as the offender - almost SIXTY PERCENT of murder victims in the US are black. Shouldn't they care about this? Where are Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to talk about this? Yet they are silent.

And it's not like this is any secret. This culture of violence, abuse of women, and plain thuggery is paraded around daily in pop music. It's glorified on TV shows like "The Wire…

The Root of Violent Extremism

We are too flippant about writing off violent extremists as "crazy", "psychopathic", etc.

Just because *we* have a hard time conceiving of doing violence to others, does not mean that those who do are insane.

Hitler was not insane. Hitler was evil. There is a distinction.

To be insane, to be "crazy", means you cannot understand the difference between right and wrong.

People like Hitler, like ISIS, these people are *evil*. They have, in what they believe to be a rational process, *chosen* to embrace a death-worshipping morality.

Such thinking is going to lead us down wrong alleys in dealing with violent political extremism.

Unless we understand the various reasons why such people embrace philosophies of death, we cannot combat the root causes and defeat violent extremism.

Obama's "they need jobs" is a juvenile approach at this. But you simply cannot ignore and dismiss the reality of life in the countries that are the flash-points of extremism…

Is Government "just the name we give to things we do together"?

"Government is just the name we give to the things we do together." Well, no. This is a truly deceptive statement. Because look here, there are many, many human institutions where people get together to do things. Churches.
Families. And these all have their own unique characteristics. If government was simply a variety of these, or vice-versa, why would we bother to have a unique word for it? If government were *merely* a charity, wouldn't we just call it a charity? What is it about government then that makes it unique? I'll tell you. It's the use of force. Government is the sole human institution that legitimately exercises physical force against others. Churches don't commit violence. Corporations don't use physical coercion to get you to buy their products or to work for them. Families don't (shouldn't) do that. BECAUSE government's essence is the use of force, government simply should not do many things, eve…