Tyranny isn't So Bad... so says the Guardian

People love tyranny! Saddam was needed to keep those animals in line. So a few people wanted to speak their mind and got killed. So what? They should have kept their mouths shut. That's what I get from reading the article.

People like David Cox, elitist, think that Saddam's hard fist was needed to control the people and prevent them from killing each other indiscriminately. That's actually a racist view....the people are inferior in ability to act civilized. Of course, at the same time David Cox, think that these same people who needed hard fist in their home country, should be granted whatever wishes they desire when they come to a Western country.

Cox also champions the Soviet Union....that modern-day Russia is no better. Whatever complaints he has about modern day Russia is the result of the fact that Russia is hardly a Western capitalist society. It resembles more a South American country.

Saddam would have had his work cut out to match these figures. So, why are the Iraqis better off without him? The only answer available is that now they are "free". Well, we all value freedom. Some value it more than life, and those who do certainly go on about it. Nonetheless, they are probably a minority.

Living under tyranny may not be ideal, but it is not impossible. In the Soviet Union, life took on a character of its own, in which the human spirit managed to flourish in spite of the political constraints. The literature generated in those conditions can still inspire us. Today, many former Soviet citizens feel no more free under the yoke of global capitalism than they did before, and some would like to see the return of Stalinism. The people of China seem in no rush to jettison a regime that holds out the prospect of prosperity at the expense only of liberty.

Even in Britain, our supposed attachment to our supposed freedom turns out to be tenuous. We seem content to toss aside ancient liberties in the face of a dubious war on terror, and we live, cheerily enough, under a regime of surveillance that the KGB might have envied.

Saddam offered his people a harsh deal. Yet, their lives were at risk only if they chose to challenge his authority. Now, they die because of the sect to which they happen to belong. Soon, their country may fall prey to a savage civil war. If that happens, the Iranians will doubtless intervene, along, perhaps, with Turkey and Israel. No one can predict where that might lead, but the outcome is unlikely to be positive for peace, prosperity, justice or, indeed, human rights.

If Saddam were still in power, he would have stopped this happening. Iraq's dissidents would have paid a price, but the rest of us would be a lot better off. As he goes to meet the hangman, the world has cause to rue his demise.

David Cox, UK Guardian