Funny, his official bio (curiously non-hagiographic until the end) doesn't mention this--the bio gives the impression he spent the 60s either studying law, running from the secret police, or in jail... (Although the July 30, 1968 "swift operation to purge the new government of ... certain ... figures" sounds suspicious.)

Mark Bowden wrote an exhaustive piece about Saddam Hussein's daily life and his rise to power for The Atlantic last year called Tales of the Tyrant. For example, one of his favourite books is Hemmingway's The Old Man and the Sea

From the perspective of one who considers themselves a (currently inactive) human rights activist, Hussein is a dark figure.

In the 20th century, most dictators tried to keep up the appearance that they were morally aloof from their sick acts, electing to have middle men do the dirty work for them.

I've heard of many cruel acts taken by one human against another, but never in my knowledge has a man worked his way into a dictatorship role by first finding personal pleasure in torture. What makes the current Iraqi despot stand out is that he has no quams about inflicting pain on a one to one basis. I believe he may be a real example of a true sociopath.

pretty heavy-handed commentary.

I have to disagree Wil, while many dictators may have not begun their careers with one to one infliction of pain, a great many (Stalin being a glaring case in point, Pol Pot and a whole gang of African boys following suit) got so dizzy with it that a mere thought edgewise was enough to cost you your head.

While I agree that Saddam is a wholly unsavoury character, I can name more than a few others currently at the helm, so I don't think we can overlook the egregious hypocrisy involved in targeting only him (and more importantly the people of Iraq) for mass destruction.

I like consistency as much as anyone, but I can live without it if it means that a malefactor (e.g. Saddam) is removed from power. Why is consistency so important?

Gail, Will said nothing about mass destruction! But, since you broached the topic, I will. None of the current dictators you mention (except perhaps North Korea) have the demonstrable (and demonstrated) ability to project that evil across their national borders in such a devastating manner. By the way, by definition, you can't target only a single person for mass destruction, which is not the same as war.

Indeed, one of the most disturbing things about the situation is that Iraq has been targeted for mass destruction on the grounds that the aggressors want Hussein out. (Let’s call my poor syntax metonymy)

To call the situation a war is just more double speak, more propaganda: ‘war against terrorism’ ‘war against drugs’ ‘showdown: Iraq,’ etc. Always with the war, already. It is so chillingly puerile. Military action in Iraq would be unilateral aggression, pure and simple.

I agree that North Korea is the only true threat, but everyone knows that military action against it would have dire consequences, so no-one dares suggest it.

I hate Bush intensely, and I gladly live and pay taxes in France... however, the tone of this conversation brings out my inner redneck.

The North Koreans are a joke, and are about to implode, not explode. The USA will rightfully take out any nuclear reactor they put online. I think any "dire consequences" they might launch are complete nonsense, just North Korean propaganda and hand-wringing. There are 640,000 ultra-modern troops on our side ready to kick their million-man 1966- era army in the ass.

Saddam is not worth describing or defending with any argument or comparison. He is a monstrous puppet that we stupidly supported, militarily defeated and then let slide, out of fear of Iran taking over Southern Iraq in 1991. His survival is a reminder of our misreading and political cowardice, and we should now be courageous enough to destroy the ghastly situation we have perpetuated. This war will bring our twelve-year long choke-hold on Iraq and its people to an end.

Bush is a reckless fool , an inveterate gambler, an unpleasant, superstitious and narrow-minded frat boy, but he is not wrong in wanting to axe Saddam! If you watch TV, the road to hell seems to have been paved for us with his good intentions, yeah.... but I doubt the coming war will last longer than four weeks. Are we not all old enough to remember the "impossibility" of successfully invading Afghanistan? The Iraqi army is full of forced and starving conscriptees! This will be another laser-guided turkey shoot, and the only thing I think we should discuss is whether Bush's soon-to-be-complete military success will revive the economy and ensure the safety of our Constitution, or not.

You Americans really spin me out!
Your bloody government has been involved in many forms of terrorism and torture over the past forty years.
Your foreign policy is one of the worst in the world. You are about to start a war against an innocent people.
Your currrent president sent the most people to death by electric chair when he was governor of Texas - isnt that torture??? Barbaric?
In one week of bombing Afghanistan your government killed many more civilians than died in the World Trade Centre.
If you are going to take little facts and use them to incite hatred against a person then for Heaven's sake do it with your own government as well.
Get your head out of the sand then maybe you can do some good in the world. Then maybe you can start resisting a war in one of the poorest countries in the world where over a million INNOCENT people may be killed by your government and inadvertantly by those of you who do not resist. If you accept the fact that war does not bring peace start acting now. Write letters to the government, Emails, stage protest rallies, go to Iraq and live with a family through the war if you want to see how it is!!!
A friend of mine is in Iraq at the moment and he says that the Iraqui people are scared shitless at the moment and they have every reason to be and have done nothing to deserve the fear that this war is bringing into their already difficult lives.
Can't you think of anything more useful to do with your time than inciting hatred of another country and its people? You are indeed a redneck!!!!

it is forbidden to mention the completely irrelevant fact that Martin Amis is Jewish, is a Jew. it is anti-Semitic to mention that. it is unnecessary and forbidden. it is wrong to imply that Martin Amis may have biased views and attitudes about Saddam Hussein because Martin Amis is Jewish, is a Jew. Martin Amis' views on the Palestinian genocide are equally irrelevant to a discussion about, to a recital of, the crimes of Saddam. my personal feelings about Saddam? in a roomful of butchers he is almost unnoticable.

Mia, I don't hate anybody except the President, and I cannot see how I am inciting hatred of anyone. And I am certainly not exonerating any government or military, the US or France, the UK or Russia or Iraq, of killing people unfairly. They all have and do so. Hello, Chechnya? Czechoslovakia? Northern Ireland? Algeria?

The Iraq facts are not in question: the US and UK have been bombing Iraq very regularly for twelve years, under a questionable interpretation of the UN mandate that sent troops there originally. It is a half-measure that "contains" an evil government in its lair, where it feeds on its own people.

The first Gulf War has never ended, and any poor friend you have in Iraq will tell you that. This will hopefully be the last major campaign we have to fight there. Maybe this war can be stopped, and the Iraqi people set free (by June) in some other way, but it seems wishful thinking to me.

Martin Amis is Jewish? Like Sammy Davis Jr.? I am aware of his attempts to appear Yankee, but I think wanting to be Saul Bellow's surrogate son is the closest he's ever come to Judaism. I am, of course, open to contradiction.

Mia wrote: Your currrent [sic] president sent the most people to death by electric chair when he was governor of Texas - isnt that torture??? Barbaric?

The word barbarian was invented by the Romans I believe, or perhaps it was a Greek term that the Romans adopted later. In any case, it was used to refer to the largely unknown peoples to the north. While the Germanic tribes to the north certainly were uncivilized compared the Classical cultures, the Greeks and Romans regularly executed people, with no qualms about it.

Torture is worse than execution. When you are slated to die, you don't lose your will to live. When you are being tortured, you beg for death.

Mia, as Governor of Texas Mr. Bush did not execute anyone. The State of Texas by virtue of its constitution and laws provides for the execution of criminals found guilty by due process of that law. The constitution also provides that should the governor find cause to 'stay' that execution he may do so. To have done so in all cases would have been a usurpation of that privelege. That is, the right to execute a criminal belongs to the citizens of the state, not the governor. The governor can only stay or commute the will of the people. He cannot assign execution notices at will.

Additonally, I would suggest that most any criminal executed during the term of Gov. Bush would have been found guilty of his crime and sentenced to death long before Gov. Bush took office. In this case, we may want to focus your misplaced blame on perhaps his predecessor, Gov. Ann Richards, liberal and democrat. And I really have no surety, but I suspect Gov. Richards did not stay or commute a large number of executions either.

As for Afghanistan, the U.S. government aided the rebel forces fighting Soviet Russia's attempt to take over that country. The group that the U.S. aided included one Osama Bin Laden. They were victorious with the withdrawal of the Soviet Union in its aggressions in Afghanistan. The new government established in that country by its vicotrs took the form of the Taliban. The U.S. did NOT support that government and had no relations with it until shortly after 9/11.

As for Iraq, that country was formed by drawing lines in sand when the British relinquished emperial control of the region. Through historical fate we now have SHussein. Whatever relations the U.S. has had with that government could not at this time be blamed on the current U.S. administration or the current congress. I do however, applaud the efforts of the current U.S. administrations efforts to rectify the misguided efforts of previous administrations in attempting to resolve a hideous blight on humanity in the form of SHussein. As for murder of innocents, women and children... Mr. Bush does not bear the guilt you attempt to assign to his actions.

Mia,

You ought to at least post factually:

1) Texas never executed anyone in Texas with the electric chair while Bush was in office. Texas was the first, I believe, to use lethal injection. Not that you care...

2) It is a complete and utter lie to state that the US killed in one week (in Afghanistan) more civilians than died in NYC on 9/11. That argument has been thoroughly debunked and discredited by many news organizations. At most, there were in the neighborhood of 600-1000 civilian casualties in Afghanistan. And lest we forget, the Afghanistan people welcomed us with open arms when we liberated them from the Taliban. To believe the 6000 casualty figures you have to believe the Taliban (which was shown to inflate and duplicate the numbers for willing dupes like yourself).

3) These 1 million people you're convinced we're ready to kill in Iraq....Where'd you get that estimate from? Hummmm. First of all it is from the UN but you have done what they have -- inflate it. The UN estimates are closer to 500,000. Which is WILDLY too high. Secondly, didn't this selfsame UN estimate that a million Afghanistani's would die of starvation because of our effort to oust the Taliban. Let me see. How close was that guess? Third (and most importantly) this is not an objective assessment of the number of possible casualties but rather an attempt by an inherently anti-war and pro-dictator supporting group (the UN) that is not above manufacturing arguments against the war.

4) You guys on the left NEVER have to pay for your wildly wrong stances. You are never held to account for them. And that is unfortunate. You just go on your merry way spouting forth falsehoods without ever being held accountable.

5) We are not starting a war against the Iraqi people. To claim otherwise is ridiculous. So what is your stand on the UN sanctions on Iraq? Afterall, the UN (not the US) passed these sanctions in a DIPLOMATIC effort to get rid of Husseins' weapons. Are they responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis? Have they worked? Should we continue to pursue these sanctions which don't work and result in Hussein starving his people? Haven't, then, diplomatic efforts resulted in a half million deaths of innocent Iraqis??? And if you're not for military action and still want Hussein disarmed, aren't sanctions one of the few "weapons" you still have left? Won't your pursuing diplomatic means of disarming Hussein result in an equally high number of deaths as what you estimate a war will??

6) Let me ask you a question. You don't want us to militarily intervene in Iraq. You want "inspections" to be given a chance (I guess 12 years isn't long enough for you). So the question is, WHY are there inspectors in Iraq right now and WHY is Saddam destroying a few missiles? Is it because Blix has them nervous? Get real. The ONLY reason Hussein has budged on this is because of the real and credible threat of backing up words with action. Something the UN is not used to. And has proven itself entirely incapable of...

7) I'd wager that we'll be greated in Bagdad as liberators and that you and your friends will slink off into the background for long enough for people to forget your predictions. I'd also wager that the Iraqi people your friend tells you of are far more afraid of what Hussein has, will or could do to them than what the US will do to them, particularly if they were to say things about him similar to what you say about Bush. Isn't living in a free society where you CAN say such things a great thing? Why are you so determined not to allow the Iraqi people the same right? Or do you say that they 'elected' Hussein?

Mia and Gail,

Why do you choose to spit out such wildly exaggerated tales and one-sided vitriol? Why the disingenuous distortions of logic?

"In one week of bombing Afghanistan your government killed many more civilians than died in the World Trade Centre. "

"over a million INNOCENT people may be killed by your government "

These are outright fabrications - and you know it.

"While I agree that Saddam is a wholly unsavoury character, I can name more than a few others currently at the helm, so I don't think we can overlook the egregious hypocrisy involved in targeting only him.."

First, the lie. We are NOT targeting only him and you know it. Second, the failure of logic. That is, by your "logic" it is "hypocrisy" for any power - an individual, a police force, or a nation - to EVER stop an evil or violent person when others may exist as well.

I must ask you both: what has so hollowed your soul and your intellect that you cleave to demonstrably false numbers while ignoring the pleas of real human beings being tortured, raped and murdered in Saddam's prisons? Do you deny the memory of those gassed by Hitler as well?

Do you so hate your human companions in this world that you would do almost anything to prevent the US from coming to their aid? Surely you realize that, just as in Afghanistan, the net effect of a US invasion of Iraq will be a dramatic reduction in the rate at which innocent Iraqis die. We will do absolutely everything in our power to make the removal of the Baathist thugs as surgically precise as possible.

The Baathists and the Islamofascists, in contrast, wish to murder as many innocents as is humanly possible. It is their stated goal. And you side with them.

You accuse us of their crimes despite our efforts to save their people (Kosovo, anyone?). You accuse us of oppression while liberated Afghanis dance in the streets. You assign to us vile motivations and make baseless charges of profiteering when we've walked away from empire more times than any other culture has gained an empire.

Why?

In the debate between liberal democracy and human rights versus murderous, fundamentalist extremism, you have both made the decision to undercut human rights by spreading obvious lies and disingenuous logic.

Why?

Don't pretend that you are defending human dignity because it is manifestly untrue by your very acts. Tell us, instead, why hatred for the US has consumed your humanity and your reason. We would all truly like to know.

My two cents worth...if it is even worth that.

I think that Iraq was chosen as a target at this time simply because it was the target that met the required parameters most closely. I believe that the US will be targeting more countrys as opportunity and circumstances allow, unless there is an abrupt turn around in the conduct of the leaders of each of those target nations. This is not just an effort to single out Iraq and SH.

There are many in the US to whom it is was expected it would be appealing to finally finish what was started 12 years ago, so these people could be counted upon as support for this action.

There was the likelihood that there would be at least some support for this action internationally, GB at least( I don't think the administration ever really expected support for direct action from France and Germany or the UN). Russia?

I believe it was felt that Iraq makes a decent first (second) target when all the pros and cons are weighed.

I think the expectation is that by targeting Iraq many of the terrorist organizations throughout the region and the world at large will lay low (at least short term) for fear of having their host nation targeted next.... The exception being Al Qaeda? But then even they must be hosted actively somewhere by some group.

I think the point is that by targeting Iraq the US is putting all the petty thug dictators throughout the world on notice. You could be next. If you actively support terrorism against the US. If you threaten the peace to the detriment of US and allied interests you could be next.

I believe it isn't so much about SH specifically being a murderer and a torturer. It is about all these sorts of regimes taken as a whole. It is felt that they all must be dealt with to protect the safety and interests of the people of the US, and it's allies.

As a bonus in this case along the way the US gets the privilege of freeing some people from a practiced torturer and sociopathic killer.

As for N Korea. They can't deliver a nuclear weapon to the US unless they smuggle one in. In the same way so many fear that Al Queda would love to. North Korea is a greater threat to its neighbors for now. To make sure of this the US may actually remove the bulk of US troops from S Korea in the near future. So for now it should be dealt with as an issue for China, South Korea and others to deal with. There is still time, and plenty of resources to deal with them as a threat. If the leadership of N Korea continues to conduct itself as it is currently I would not be supprised to see them targeted next, and soon.

I think it is felt that when one threat is confidently and firmly dealt with at a time, then the remaining threats will seek to reduce the chances of their being the next targeted threat.

Despite all the political rhetoric I believe that both parties are actually in accord on this and for the near term it will matter little which party is in power. The US will continue to target those nations that are a threat to it's interests and the interests of it's allies.

God has given us a shallow, inarticulate, Christian, reformed drunk who thinks he's got a pipeline to The Almighty Himself because spiritual introspection arrested his alcoholism.

God has also provided that president and people like me with poor and stupid enemies.

This is the perfect combination for destruction of The Axis of Evil and Islam. Soon, please God, soon...and thank You.

Pls read this site!
http://www.seaswap.org/iraqpeace/khristo-background.html

PEACE PEACE PEACE

Gail,
from where I am, on the coast of California, a long sail west will take you to the Inscrutable East. there are many, too many, similarly true paradoxes abounding in this odd tense time. Sammy Davis was, I believe, genetically partially, and religiously wholly, Jewish, and possibly still is. Martin Amis is genetically half-Jewish, as far as I know. I don't have a list of such things. I like Martin Buber a lot. I have an mp3 of Allen Ginsberg singing "Do The Meditation" while Bob Dylan plays the guitar. Lenny Bruce is my total hero. I am sickened beyond nausea by Jewish/Israeli viciousness and manipulation of public opinion in the so-called english-speaking world. I believe that just as a Palestinian or an Iraqi would be expected/suspected to be partisan in a discussion involving the fate(s) of their respective homelands, so too with Jews, with Israelis, and the fate of the middle-eastern world.

-