"Massive fists", "iron grip" "outsized ego" this is how the writer from newsweek has started this article. The use of those three terms immediately invokes an image of a tyrant without the reader having to further read the article. Very disingenious. How does a war memorial suddenly become "BOTH a symbol" of an "outsized ego" and "iron grip"? Whatever happened to it's foremost function as a war memorial?

For nearly 20 years, the swords have dominated the skyline in central Baghdad. But on Tuesday afternoon, 10-foot bronze chunks cut from one fist were stacked haphazardly at the base of the monument, the first step in bringing the swords down.

Here the reader, through slight of hand (pun intended) by the writer, is being led to believe they are cutting Saddam's fist, the same "massive fists" which had an "iron grip".

"I was very shocked when I heard they started destroying it," says Mustafa Khadimi, executive director of the Iraq Memory Foundation,an organization that has meticulously documented the atrocities of the former regime.

When was this organization started, who funds the Iraqi Memory Foundation (IMF), have they documented the atrocities of the CURRENT regime? How about the atrocities of the Bush regime or the Safavids or the Israelis? Or is this just a sunni witchhunt?

The Iraqi government has yet to issue an official statement about the dismantling of the swords, but the effort is clearly already underway. Khadimi says Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki made the decision to bring down the monument last week in coordination with a governmental body named the Committee for Removing Symbols of the Saddam Era.

Maliki is so bitter about Saddam's popularity that he has gone to the extreme of creating a committee for removing or ERAZING any symbol of Saddam's era.

Newsflash: Al-Maliki you would need to wipe out peoples memories not just symbols because Saddam will be remembered regardless of what symbols you destroy.

The idea of erasing the symbols of the former regime completely undercuts the mission of organizations like the Iraq Memory Foundation, which had planned to build a huge museum on the site. Representatives from the organization have sent letters of protest to the Iraqi government as well as UNESCO. "We need to use these two swords as proof to further generations to show what happened to Iraqi people," says Khadimi.

Khadimi isn't worried about the destruction of Iraqs national treasures like the "Hands of Victory" but how to continue with smearing Saddam Hussein's name. Btw Khadimi how is a war memorial proof of what happened to the Iraqi people? Does that mean every country which has built a war memorial should have that same memorial thrown in it's face for that countries previous wars?

Saddam constructed the monument to symbolize what he saw as a definitive victory in the brutal war with Iran during the 1980s. The pair of crossed swords was officially unveiled in 1989, but Saddam started construction on the monument well before the war with Iran was even finished. He pulled out all the stops.

This writer should be ashamed, very ashamed. To convince the reader of how the "Hands of Victory" were built PURELY for Saddam's "outsized ego", the writer tries showing how even the "claim" of the swords being built for a "definitive victory" were supposedly started even before the end of the war. "he pulled out all stops"??? If there is one real moronic sentence that stands out more than most, it is this one. What stops is the writer talking about?

The swords cross approximately 130 feet in the air and are reportedly built from melted-down tanks and other hardware used by the Iraqi military. The hands gripping the swords, approximately 20 feet high, are bronze replicas of Saddam's own fists.

Now the writer is trying even harder to convince us Saddam was "sick", look he built a war memorial from tanks and helmets. Of course the writer provides no facts to back up his inuendo. "reportedly"? Who reported this? Or is the writer just "reportedly" making this up?

The Butcher of Baghdad added a gruesome final touch: thousands of helmets from Iranian soldiers allegedly killed in the war dangle from nets attached to the fists. Other helmets are embedded in concrete at the base of the monument, intended as speed bumps.

Now we have advanced to calling Saddam "The Butcher of Baghdad", is the writer basing that purely on numbers killed? If so, what does the writer call Bush/Maliki/Blair/Howard? Notice throughout the whole article, at every opportunity the has, the writer demonizes Saddam probably to convince the reader that the "Swords of Victory" need to come down. I wonder where the writers allegiance lay? Also we have that wonderful word "allegedly" pop up, as a reporter, the writer of this article should know better than to listen to gossip and report the same gossip. How about instead of allegations the writer provides us with facts, not too hard surely.

These days, the monument sits in the heart of the Green Zone. Since the fall of the regime, visitors have left their mark with graffiti. One scrawl in black pen on a green Iranian helmet reads, "I [heart] Iraq."

This sounds like the "hands" of Iran are involved.

Taking a photo beneath the crossed swords is a must-do for visitors of all stripes. And Tuesday was no exception. Humvees and SUVs pulled up for a photo op at sunset as word spread that the monument was being taken down. Some posed beneath the swords, others pulled out digital cameras to preserve the moment.

They have time to take tourist pictures but not to save innocents from dying, are they sightseeing or carrying out an invasion?

A handful of souvenir hunters were stopped by Green Zone police as they tried to haul off a half dozen helmets.

I thought the helmets were built into the ground or about 100 feet in the air? Obviously to convince us about the helmets this little piece was thrown in.

Like Saddam's bungled execution, a hasty decision to dismantle the monument could inflame sectarian tensions.

"Bungled" execution not THE execution or the "bungled" trial or "bungled" invasion could inflame sectarian tensions. Right! How about the daily massacres, the daily gang rapes, daily torture? Does the writer think they may exacerbate sectarian tensions? Interestingly enough the INVASION doesn't figure in this article whatsoever.

Many Sunnis, whether they supported Saddam or not, will likely interpret the move as a direct snub by a Shiite-led government. Not exactly the kind of message the government should send while enforcing a new security plan. "The timing doesn't serve anything," says Wamidh Nadhmi, a political science professor at Baghdad University. "This would be a defeat for the whole idea of reconciliation."