President of the United States, George Bush applied his doctrine of pre-emption and US forces entered Afghanistan. In pursuance of this policy, the Bush administration went a bit further and made an effort to win hearts and minds of the Muslims. Once again the old rivals of first Gulf war were confronting each other. But this time the objective was even bigger. The allied forces led by US troops, made a plan and showed determination to get rid of Saddam Hussain once and for all. This would have given two clear benefits namely support from the long suppressed Iraqi nation, who would welcome any positive change and secondly the permanent footings in the region of middle east that has enormous value because of its precious mineral resources (Mike Shuster 2006).
The Arab world wanted freedom from the fearful and despotic rule of Saddam Hussein and US promised exactly that (Hasan Abu Nimah 2007). Although some of the analysts claim that the war was unjustified on the grounds that it did not have the backing of United Nations. Still others say that this was the only way to relieve the Iraqi nation of its miseries. This is the way that would pave well for the conducive environment for democracy. A democratic government in Iraq would be a basis for stability of the country and the region.
But the incidents like the Abu Gharaib added to American problems, need to send more troops than pulling out and the rising death toll on daily basis aggravated the situation and changed the whole scenario. The Bush administration started losing its support of allied forces and among the American public. The insurgencies against the forces started rising tremendously and the Arab world lost confidence in the United States. The whole world began to doubt and started criticizing the policies and strategies of the American leadership. Thus, President Bush had to think of some way out to recover the messed up state of affairs. He therefore, decided to bring Saddam under trial and the Iraqi court sentenced him to death.
Soon after his death the air is heavy with accusation as the implication of grotesquely botched lynching sink in. What should have been an act of justice following due process had the baying malice of an execution. A legal execution intended to show at last that the period of Saddam is over-threatened to have the conflicting effects. Whilst a tyrant of exceptional violence is publicized dying with pride and no slight valor at the hands of covered thugs. No doubt American officials are cleansing their hands of this whole shocking concern, and Tony Blair is saying no to make any remark from his Miami poolside.
There is some fairness in American statements that it is the Iraqi PM, Nouri al-Maliki, who has to take the burden of blame for this fiasco. He outshined religious and legal reactions to rush the death sentence. The Iraqi constitution wants President Jalal Talabani and his two colleagues to sign a verdict of authorization for ‘the death sentence’. Mr Maliki efficiently disregarded this obligation. Even more rabble-rousing to the extent that Iraq’s Sunni minority is concerned was his breach of the Iraqi decree that executions should not occur during the Eid al-Adha, the Muslim’s celebration day. For Sunnis, that

You may also like

Publication Bans

A public bank can be issued if it is necessary

Whether Royal Prerogative Powers Are Unnecessary

There is near consensus amongst the members of Parliament and

Observation Riding Public Transportation

And whether or not they are rich or poor people