Arab pundit praises downfall of Saddam, Laments that arabs did not do it first

Dr Osama Al-ghazali Harb of the editor of the Eygyptian quarterly Al-Siyassa Al- Dawliya magazine says;

"Yet the farce of Saddam's surrender is nothing compared to the ridiculous interpretations of this event circulating among Arabs and Muslims. The first of these interpretations regards the manner of Saddam's capture as a deliberate and unprecedented insult to all Arabs and Muslims. This point of view implies that Saddam is in some form a symbol of Arabs and Muslims, a 'legitimate' leader, whose actions were a true reflection of the aims and aspirations of Iraq and the Arab world. This cannot be further from the truth. Saddam never had any real legitimacy - his decisions and policies were in flat contradiction to Iraqi, Arab, and Islamic interests. Saddam's arrest - the arrest of any criminal, anywhere - is neither an insult nor a humiliation, but a sign of civility and respect for the law"

"What we, as Arabs, should truly feel humiliated about are the prevailing political and social conditions in the Arab world - especially in Iraq - which allowed someone such as Saddam Hussein to become vice president in 1968 - and then, through an unparalleled bloody and conspiratorial path, to assume the presidency in 1979."

That about sums it up for me, what do you think?

www.memri.org...

The man wouldn't have got in without the help of the United States anyway, but its good to know that arabs don't like him either (though we already knew that). Saddam didn't hire a bunch of security and body doubles for no reason, ya know. Everybody was out to get him. I don't think the arabs can blame themselves for allowing him in power for so long given his very powerful U.S. secret partners which did conspire to get him into leadership position.

Too bad that the only proactive work that Arabs are up to in a long time is terrorism. I would like to see more from them myself.

Great! One Arab down, a billion to go.

It's not the pundits I'm worried about so much as the guys with guns. Too bad they disagree.

Originally posted by heelstone
The man wouldn't have got in without the help of the United States anyway, but its good to know that arabs don't like him either (though we already knew that). Saddam didn't hire a bunch of security and body doubles for no reason, ya know. Everybody was out to get him. I don't think the arabs can blame themselves for allowing him in power for so long given his very powerful U.S. secret partners which did conspire to get him into leadership position.

Heelstone, I understand that the US helped both Iraq and Iran in their war against each other for the purely political reason of causing a stalemate in the 1980s, but please explain or back-up your summation that the US brought Saddam to power in 68', thanks Phoenix

We helped the overthrow of the previous regime in Iraq and rise to power of the Ba'athist party...

Originally posted by OXmanK
We helped the overthrow of the previous regime in Iraq and rise to power of the Ba'athist party...

Got a link? - I've always thought they were an independant movement that swayed to the soviets after we refused support.

Hold on, it might take a few minutes to find...(surfing the backed up Fark I have missed...)

Originally posted by OXmanK
Hold on, it might take a few minutes to find...(surfing the backed up Fark I have missed...)

OxmanK, I'll read it for sure when you do find it - Deny Ignorance!

Shoot...cannot find it. I have been searching ATS and Yahoo. I know I have read it on the net. Must apologize for the previous statement. If I do find it, you will notice a very happy edit on this statement.

OXmanK doesn't look very hard. I just got this link in under a minute of browsing google.

www.globalpolicy.org...