Saddam Execution

[magicninja]

What do you guys think about it? I don't lnow honestly. I approve of the death penelty and everything but I think this was a sensitive case and I just don't see what good could can come from it.

I have a link to a pretty cheap vid of the execution but I ain't posting it here. I will divulge it by pm to people here I know.

[hunter60]

That's a tough call.

IF he was executed for his crimes against humanity i.e. the wholesale slaughter of his own countrymen, then he got what was coming. If, and this makes me nervous and a bit queasy to think about, he was executed due to American influence over political nonsense...then it was clearly wrong.

I don't know. Seriously. I just don't know.

[alucard0941]

Though I do agree with the execution primarliy, I think lynching is quite medieval. Isnt there a better way of getting rid of someone without humiliation? Nothing really good came out of his death because if anything, it has sparked more hatred and belligerence towards the western world.

[Akira]

Hanging Saddam doesn't solve anything in the middle east.

[aschleman]

Hanging Saddam doesn't solve anything in the middle east.

I don't think the execution was designed as an end-all or solution to anything that's going on in the middle east.... It's simply a sentence of justice. If anything it will inflame the situation. It was more about serving justice than trying to end a conflict.

[elklandercc]

ITs funny that at the momment, more people hate Bush right now than Saddam (well, before he was hung.) I think the death sentence was unecessary nd that he deserved a fair trial.

Btw, I saw the full video (camcorder version) as well Marcos.

[BluesHound9]

Maybe I am naieve or just don't fully understand but it seems to me that most of the Iraqi people were scared of Saddam, And with good reason. Most are probably glad that he is dead and it is the radical loyalists that are going to use the execution to spread hatred of the western world even though it was an Iraqi court with an Iraqi judge and an Iraqi jury that tried,convicted and sentenced him.
Personally I don't think we (the U.S.) should have even been in Iraq in the first place but thats a whole different topic.

[aschleman]

I think the death sentence was unecessary nd that he deserved a fair trial.



He did have a trial... I can't see how he deserved anything less than to die........ Anyone that uses biological warfare against their own countrymen doesn't deserve to have the priveledge of life. I think a lot of peoples judgement on Sadaam has been clouded by their personal feelings about Bush and the US's position in the middle east...

Either way... if the trial had drug out over 10 years... it still would have ended with Sadaam being executed and rightfully so. Of course, arguing whether or not death is an acceptable punishment for anyone is an entirely different story... I'm a believer in "take a life, give your life"... but whatever... in all honesty... I don't really care. I'd rather just live my own life than worry about whether or not the actions of others are right...

[Raskolnikov]

He did have a trial... I can't see how he deserved anything less than to die........ Anyone that uses biological warfare against their own countrymen doesn't deserve to have the priveledge of life. I think a lot of peoples judgement on Sadaam has been clouded by their personal feelings about Bush and the US's position in the middle east...
T3H WINNAR!!!1


Irrespective of our individual political positions on [pick a topic, any topic], we all need to get away from ignoring one person's or one groups sins because we're ticked off at somebody opposed to them. Likewise, Stalin allying with the US and UK in WWII didn't make him any less of a mass murderer.

[z0s0_jp]

he was supposed to use those wmd's we gave him against Iran dammit...not his political/religious opponents :rolleyes:

[Kevin Taylor]

Well, I thought his last album sucked, so he deserved to be hanged... the bastard.

[earthman buck]

At first, I was totally indifferent to the whole thing. Then I heard about how he has gassed entire villages, and I thought "Wow, what an asshole." I think he deserved to die.

That said, Akira's right. It's not gonna solve anything. And it would be inaccurate to say justice has been served. But it's a step in the right direction. Maybe.

[z0s0_jp]

Well, I thought his last album sucked, so he deserved to be hanged... the bastard.yea.... i thought "Smells like Mustard Gas" was too emo.

[Kevin Taylor]

yea.... i thought "Smells like Mustard Gas" was too emo.

yeah..and "Weapons of Mass Destruction" was supposed to be this big explosive hit, and it ended up being a major disappointment.

[elklandercc]

He did have a trial... I can't see how he deserved anything less than to die........ Anyone that uses biological warfare against their own countrymen doesn't deserve to have the priveledge of life. I think a lot of peoples judgement on Sadaam has been clouded by their personal feelings about Bush and the US's position in the middle east...

Either way... if the trial had drug out over 10 years... it still would have ended with Sadaam being executed and rightfully so. Of course, arguing whether or not death is an acceptable punishment for anyone is an entirely different story... I'm a believer in "take a life, give your life"... but whatever... in all honesty... I don't really care. I'd rather just live my own life than worry about whether or not the actions of others are right...
I just don't think execution for murder is reasonable. When you hear about suicides, its about people who are trying to avoid something whether it be long jail time or they're sick of their life (in other words, they se it as an easy way out.) So killing him was like him taking the easy way out. I think life in prison with Iraqis that he put in prison is a far worse punishment.

[jeffhx]

i agree with hunter in his first post...the american media cant always be trusted...the spins added to newstories before and now..god knows the real truth..i also had mixed feelings about this issue...i felt that maybe he wasn't given a fair trial...maybe it was set up by american politicians? they had to get rid of him...now that they have, i cant wait to see the good that comes out of it in iraq though...

more violence=more troops to be deployed=more unnecessary death

im in limbo :rolleyes:

[R. Shackleferd]

Yep, I agree that there are worse fates than death. But he surely deserved it. And I think the trial was plenty fair. He had multiple appeals too. When you're proven guilty (which wouldn't have been all that hard in his case), and had your appeals, the sentence should be carried out. I can only imagine the circus it would've become had he been tried here, or in some international trial. But his ultimate demise was fitting...by the Iraqis themselves. It may very well prove to be an important step for the still relatively new government in gaining the confidence/trust of the people. I would guess that a long series of trials, resulting in just prison would've been seen as weakness by that society. But still, a smaller portion still hold him as a hero and now a martyr. So yeah, in the end, it was something they had to work out on their own, and will have to continue to do so in a broader aspect as well.

[z0s0_jp]

yeah..and "Weapons of Mass Destruction" was supposed to be this big explosive hit, and it ended up being a major disappointment.
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to schmange again.

[GuitarPsy]

I think putting him to death, especially on the special day of Eid ul-Adha, a very important day that marks sacrifice and forgiveness and reunion, was just plain stupid
even more stupid when you consider the fact that the Iraqi tribunal consisted of Shiites (the majority in Iraq and Iran) and then knowing that Saddam Hussein was Sunni. Those two groups already don't get along great.

executing his death sentence on this day, was just a provocation to more violence and it made him a martyr to many, he deserved the death sentence, but considering the circumstances I believe life in prison would be more appropriate

hearing comments from Saddam's 'followers' I can only say one thing about it... 'ignorance is a bitch', but then again, who knows the whole truth these days

[alucard0941]

At least we all know Saddam can really do those dive bomb antics. (pun intended)

hahahahahahahaha :o

[earthman buck]

even more stupid when you consider the fact that the Iraqi tribunal consisted of Shiites (the majority in Iraq and Iran) and then knowing that Saddam Hussein was Sunni. Those two groups already don't get along great.
Especially when you consider all the Shiites Saddam killed.....

I kind of agree with elklander, though. Death does seem like a pretty light sentence for a guy who killed as many people as Saddam Hussein. A more fitting sentence might have been to stick him in a room and gas him. Not to death, just to the point of physical deterioration. And then maybe throw in some old-fashioned torture for good measure.

(I really disagree with torture, but I think in instances of mass, mass, mass murderers, exceptions can be made.)

[aschleman]

I kind of agree with elklander, though. Death does seem like a pretty light sentence for a guy who killed as many people as Saddam Hussein.

Put yourself in the shoes of a person that is sitting in bed the night before they KNOW they are going to be put to death... Put yourself in the shoes of a person who is walking towards the gallows. Put yourself in the shoes of a person who has the noose tightened to their neck...

I think the mental torment of that far out weighs any that you would face while wasting away in a jail... A person sitting in jail still has the opportunity to breath...

I don't think letting Sadaam waste away in a jail cell offers any comfort to the families of people that he has murdered either... I guess it's just the way you look at it. I know that some people are pro death penalty and some aren't... So it's just another one of those things that's never going to be settled.

[elklandercc]

Put yourself in the shoes of a person that is sitting in bed the night before they KNOW they are going to be put to death... Put yourself in the shoes of a person who is walking towards the gallows. Put yourself in the shoes of a person who has the noose tightened to their neck...

I think the mental torment of that far out weighs any that you would face while wasting away in a jail... A person sitting in jail still has the opportunity to breath...

I don't think letting Sadaam waste away in a jail cell offers any comfort to the families of people that he has murdered either... I guess it's just the way you look at it. I know that some people are pro death penalty and some aren't... So it's just another one of those things that's never going to be settled.

I'll take that over gettin beat and **** raped everyday. :rolleyes:

[R. Shackleferd]

Yep, I don't think the Iraqi's would be giving him Doritos like we did. And how about going to sleep every night knowing you faced a day of torture, ridicule, labor or whatever they felt like doing to him that day.

[earthman buck]

^^^Yeah, exactly.

I see what you're getting at, though, aschleman. The families of the people he killed probably wouldn't get any comfort from him being in jail.

I just think that if you're going to be put to death, it's mental anguish, but it's limited. You know when the mental anguish will end. If you're in prison for the rest of your life, you are living, but you're not free, and you know you never will be again. That would mess with my head a lot more than knowing I'm about to die.

I'd take death over life in prison any day. But maybe that's just me.

[hunter60]

^^^Yeah, exactly.

I see what you're getting at, though, aschleman. The families of the people he killed probably wouldn't get any comfort from him being in jail.

I just think that if you're going to be put to death, it's mental anguish, but it's limited. You know when the mental anguish will end. If you're in prison for the rest of your life, you are living, but you're not free, and you know you never will be again. That would mess with my head a lot more than knowing I'm about to die.

I'd take death over life in prison any day. But maybe that's just me.

I think you're right but there is one aspect of this that we haven't touched on yet. We (all of us responding here) are normal folks. We don't engineer the deaths of thousands and thousands of people. We don't play God. We don't rule by fear, intimidation and torture. People (term used soooo very loosely) like him are not like us. They don't think and react like us. I am convinced that carrying out a death sentence is not so much to mete out justice against the offending party as it is a way, yes, medevial in it's way, of bringing about retribution and justice for the families of the victims.

I would be willing to bet that in his mind, Saddam went to the gallows as a hero. A martyr. The price to pay for the power he wielded. Sure, at the end, as he was trudging up those stairs or having the noose thrown over his head, I am sure that his heart was literally beating out of his chest. But it would not surprise me in the least that in the days leading up to his execution, he thought himself the victor over his captors.

And if they had held him with life in prison, it would be the same. Spitting in the eye of his captors.

He had his trial at the hand of the Iraqi's, he was convicted by these same folks and they executed him. Does it change anything? Wait and see but I doubt it. But the families of his victims can try to close that horrific chapter of their lives.

It's like when a killer is executed in this country. Capital punishment does not slow down violent crime. It does not 'punish' the killer. It provides him an escape in a way (unless you are a religious person and then you think that it just sort of sent him on his way to his own judgment). What it does is provide a sense of closure and justice to the families of the vicitms.

To me, execution or life in prison are both death sentences. Either-or.

[earthman buck]

We (all of us responding here) are normal folks. We don't engineer the deaths of thousands and thousands of people. We don't play God. We don't rule by fear, intimidation and torture.
I don't know....some of the mods here......

Seriously though, I agree with every single thing hunter said in the above post.

[ren]

It's possible he should have been executed for his crimes against humanity - but he was found guilty 'only' of having 148 people killed in response to a failed attempt on his life (Dujail). Thet should have had everything he was accused of out in court. The cynic in me suspects that the west don't want to go near some of if because of our involvement - indirect or otherwise.

In my view, he should have been sentenced to death and then had that commuted to life in prison - shows the strength/mercy of the new regime. The families of Saddam's victims probably won't get much out of his death.

[Raskolnikov]

It's possible he should have been executed for his crimes against humanity - but he was found guilty 'only' of having 148 people killed in response to a failed attempt on his life (Dujail). Thet should have had everything he was accused of out in court. The cynic in me suspects that the west don't want to go near some of if because of our involvement - indirect or otherwise.
Or maybe it has something to do with avoiding Double Jeopardy?

Or do we prosecute serial killers for one or two murders at a time (out of the dozens they've often committed) because of direct or indirect Western involvement?

[Andrew Sa]

yea I'm with Akira. I dont think he was a good person, and perhaps he even deserved to die...but who are we decide? Killing Saddam served no purpose but to illustrate the authority held by America.

I obviously dont agree with any of his sentiments, and feel that his tyrany was very wrong, but I dont think it should have been up to the rest of the world as to wether he was killed or not.

Personally, I'm usually against the death penalty in all but the most extreme of cases...Prison should be seen as the correctional facility it was intended to be, and not as the punnishment as it is now perceived. Rehabilitation, not punnishment

[Bar Chord Nick]

I have no doubt Saddam deserved to be executed. I don't think his death or all the troops in the free world will ever stabilize the Middle East. Religious fanaticism is way to strong to overcome. I think the only thing his execution did was for those who lived in fear of Saddam even with him in prison now know he can't hurt them any longer. Those who sided with Saddam will always see the trial as corrupt and those who hated him will see it as just.

Seems to me the only way to solve the problems in the Middle East is to teach them there is Religion and there is Politics and the two are separate ideas and need to be kept that way. Good luck with that.....

[Raskolnikov]

yea I'm with Akira. I dont think he was a good person, and perhaps he even deserved to die...but who are we decide? Killing Saddam served no purpose but to illustrate the authority held by America.

I obviously dont agree with any of his sentiments, and feel that his tyrany was very wrong, but I dont think it should have been up to the rest of the world as to wether he was killed or not.
It wasn't.

He was tried by Iraqis by laws designed by Iraqis in an Iraqi court and convicted by an Iraqi jury.

The only place I saw much American participation in his trial (outside of making it possible) was in his defense team.


By the way, I take it you're against international trials of War Criminals?


Personally, I'm usually against the death penalty in all but the most extreme of cases...Prison should be seen as the correctional facility it was intended to be, and not as the punnishment as it is now perceived. Rehabilitation, not punnishment
Ah... historically speaking...

Prison as a means to rehabilitate criminals is a much more modern idea than prison as a means to punish criminals.

Then again, I'm stuck going by books and The History Channel here; perhaps you can tell me how good The Tower of London's weight room and library were?

[Andrew Sa]

hehe nice Rask. Yes, historically speaking prison dungeons were intented to punish and hold, but modern correctional services are exactly that.

As for the involvement of America in Saddams trial...the entire Iraqi legal and political scene has been set up in a post Us-invasion Iraq, with leaders and principles selected and appointed by Us sympathisers...and as such fitting US Ideals...if not for US involvement, not only would he be alive, he would also be in power (I'm not saying that he should be either, but you cannot deny Americas involvement in his execution)

[R. Shackleferd]

...As for the involvement of America in Saddams trial...the entire Iraqi legal and political scene has been set up in a post Us-invasion Iraq, with leaders and principles selected and appointed by Us sympathisers...and as such fitting US Ideals...
I see where you're coming from, but Iraqi's literally risked their lives to vote in their 1st national election to help form that government to some degree. Remember the proud purple fingers? Don't underestimate or mistake national pride and genuinely constructive motives for "U.S. Ideals". Those "sympathizers" are surely near the top of the insurgent assassination lists as well.

[grizzlymint]

Well, this is obviously all a matter of perspective. In my opinion, putting Saddam in prison is just delaying the inevitable. He would be killed in there also. Not to mention, he can still have an influence on "his" people if he is still breathing. I believe in the principle "eye for an eye." Putting him in prison is still giving him a right those who he murdered and tortured did not get the luxury of. Life. He was a tyrannical leader, a terrible person, a war criminal, and a murderer. He was a danger to the United States and essentially everyone else. Out of date to hang him? Absolutely not in my opinion.

Doesn't matter now anyways.

Names John btw. From SW Pennsylvania. Hope to get to know you all!

[elklandercc]

He was a danger to the United States and essentially everyone else.

Names John btw. From SW Pennsylvania. Hope to get to know you all!
Even with him out of the picture (he's pretty much been out since his capture) the United States isn't in any better shape nor is the middle east (other than bringing joy to people dispised him.) I understand these things can take time, but I just don't see an end to any of this in the future without a major war between many other countries.

[grizzlymint]

Even with him out of the picture (he's pretty much been out since his capture) the United States isn't in any better shape nor is the middle east (other than bringing joy to people dispised him.) I understand these things can take time, but I just don't see an end to any of this in the future without a major war between many other countries.

Agreed. World peace is an idea for the naive. Too many different interests are at hand.

On a side note, I wouldn't say anybody was under the impression that the execution of Saddam was going to solve anything. However, its good not to have somebody of his type as a superpower.

[ren]

Or maybe it has something to do with avoiding Double Jeopardy?

Or do we prosecute serial killers for one or two murders at a time (out of the dozens they've often committed) because of direct or indirect Western involvement?

It seems you're mocking me.... :confused:....

So the US didn't sell the materials to construct chemical weapons to him? just like the UK government didn't sell him missile building kits? The UK missile bit happened a few years back, but is known, the US end may be conjecture, I'm unsure - either way I'm thinking they'd prefer not to go there. Our complicity in some of this is uncomfortable, but that doesn't make it untrue. Dujail was the easiest charge to prove I hear, but surely all that means is that they were looking for the easiest way to see him put to death - justice in my mind is having him held to account for all his crimes, not just the ones that secure conviction.

For the record, I'm not US bashing, and I assume you've had a crack at me thinking I was - all I'm saying is, the families of those killed in Dujail may have seen justice done - what of the millions of others who lost loved ones? They're not going to get their day in court. Likewise, all the 'alledged' crimes of Saddam will have to remain 'alledged'.... although obviously we'll accept them as fact.

I maintain my previous position, killing him illustrates perfectly how the faces change, but the story remains the same. There is no place for the death penalty in 'civilised' society. Killing someone for killing someone? It seems the irony is wasted on some people.... When will Bush and Blair see their day in the Hague? A war is being fought by my country that some 80% of my countrymen have been against since before it began.

[hunter60]

Names John btw. From SW Pennsylvania. Hope to get to know you all!

Hey John, you're a yinzer too? Cool. Me too. Maybe I'll see yinz dahn-tahn someday. We can get a Primanti's sammich or sumtin...."

Welcome to the boards. Good folks here. :)

[Jolly McJollyson]

I'm conflicted. Not over Saddam's death, really. Such a man, who has taken so many lives, deserves a terrible fate. Were he not killing his own people, the word for his mass murdering would be "genocide." His Stalin-esque style of tyranny was twisted and sick.

At the same time, I can't bear to watch the news coverage. When I heard they had showed his death on national television I felt ill. Death is a frightening thing, to me. To exist one moment and the next be a lifeless doll truly scares me. I wonder if it's wrong to be so sickened by death, yet believe Saddam deserved the fate he met.

Am I being hypocritical, then? In that I wouldn't pull the hangman's switch, but I think he deserved death? I don't feel like I'm acting out of some bloodlust, nor do I think my presumption that man's justice should dictate life and death is somehow playing God. But at the same time, I couldn't do it myself. Perhaps it's hypocrisy; maybe it's just respect for death itself.

[earthman buck]

Am I being hypocritical, then? In that I wouldn't pull the hangman's switch, but I think he deserved death? I don't feel like I'm acting out of some bloodlust, nor do I think my presumption that man's justice should dictate life and death is somehow playing God. But at the same time, I couldn't do it myself. Perhaps it's hypocrisy; maybe it's just respect for death itself.
Or maybe you just don't want to think of yourself as a killer.

I feel kinda the same as you. I wouldn't want to be the one to pull the switch. It would bother me for the rest of my life knowing I'd killed a man, even if he did deserve it.

In fact, I feel the same way in terms of animals. I don't oppose eating meat, but if I had to get my own meat, I'd probably be a vegetarian. Kind of ironic, seeing as I used to love hunting.

[hunter60]

I'm conflicted. Not over Saddam's death, really. Such a man, who has taken so many lives, deserves a terrible fate. Were he not killing his own people, the word for his mass murdering would be "genocide." His Stalin-esque style of tyranny was twisted and sick.

At the same time, I can't bear to watch the news coverage. When I heard they had showed his death on national television I felt ill. Death is a frightening thing, to me. To exist one moment and the next be a lifeless doll truly scares me. I wonder if it's wrong to be so sickened by death, yet believe Saddam deserved the fate he met.

Am I being hypocritical, then? In that I wouldn't pull the hangman's switch, but I think he deserved death? I don't feel like I'm acting out of some bloodlust, nor do I think my presumption that man's justice should dictate life and death is somehow playing God. But at the same time, I couldn't do it myself. Perhaps it's hypocrisy; maybe it's just respect for death itself.

It's healthy to have a respect for death. Not so much to fear it. We spend our lives trying to avoid something that is, in the end, unavoidable. As far as taking a life, I agree. I wouldn't want to do it. I doubt I could pull the switch or flip the lever or push the plunger. I was raised, and I expect you were as well, to respect life. We, as Americans anyway, rarely talk about death when we are growing up. Even precocious children will get some mumbly excuse or half-hearted explanation when they question their folks about death. It's not until we come to know of our own mortality that we begin to THINK about our deaths.

Don't get me wrong, I don't look forward to death or treat it lightly. I don't. But on the other side, I am not going to limit myself, my thoughts or my actions because of an overly-sensitized fear of dying. Common sense and limits.

Maybe it's a religious thing. I am not afraid to die (not too crazy about the whole dying thing though) because of my belief system. Now does that mean that I would not be sweating bullets at the end? Of course not. I would be scared out of my mind. Who wouldn't be afraid? But the idea of being here today and not tomorrow...that's okay. And if I'm wrong? No harm, no foul.

Earthman, I had to laugh and agree with you about hurting animals as well. If I had to go out and catch my own food, I promise you that I would be eating a lot of dandelions and such. I LOVE a good steak but if I had to smack a cow in the head with a ball bat to get it, well, I think I would pass.

[heknowsnothing]

I don't really have deep political thoughts like most of you but if you ask me, Saddam was executed for executing others, does that make us any better?

He deserved to be in prison for the rest of his life behind bars, execution is the easy way out for him....

[hunter60]

I don't really have deep political thoughts like most of you but if you ask me, Saddam was executed for executing others, does that make us any better?

He deserved to be in prison for the rest of his life behind bars, execution is the easy way out for him....

I don't know - that sounds like a pretty solid thought to me. I agree with you to a point. The Iraqi's sentencing him to death and then carrying it out does not make them any better than Saddam theoretically. All murder is wrong. Passion killings, depraved indifference, negligent homicide, war, executions. It's all wrong. Agreed.

Sadly, the world we inhabit does not always operate on right and wrong. Justice is the ultimate gray area. What's justice to one is murder to another. What is genocide to one is ethnic cleansing to another. What is killing innocent animals to one is simply feeding ourselves to another.

In a perfect world, there would be no need for capital punishment. In a perfect world, the world does not spawn evil. It's an ugly, ugly thing sometimes. We little carbon based bi-peds do the best we can with what we've got.

[heknowsnothing]

Well yes, when you put it like that, I suppose everyone is going to see things diferently.

But even if it was justice, did it have to be so violent? Hanging is just so old and unfair. It makes me sick thinking about it, it is such a horrible way to die. He should have been given lethal injection or at least shot like he wanted.

Even after all the horrendous things he has done, I felt sorry for him dying like that. And many people will probably flame me for saying that, but it's my thoughts.

[hunter60]

Well yes, when you put it like that, I suppose everyone is going to see things diferently.

But even if it was justice, did it have to be so violent? Hanging is just so old and unfair. It makes me sick thinking about it, it is such a horrible way to die. He should have been given lethal injection or at least shot like he wanted.

Even after all the horrendous things he has done, I felt sorry for him dying like that. And many people will probably flame me for saying that, but it's my thoughts.

I wish I knew the answer to that. My theory is that it sates the bloodlust of the state/society. Plus, and I am going way out on a limb with this one, I don't know if you want a 'clean' execution. There has to be a horror around it. When it's too clean, it's too easy. If you take the horror out of it and it becomes too antiseptic, then society would be too willing to feel like their hands were clean in it.

Does that make any sense? I dunno. Sorry if that's just pointless pontificating.

[Lordathestrings]

... But even if it was justice, did it have to be so violent? Hanging is just so old and unfair. It makes me sick thinking about it, it is such a horrible way to die. He should have been given lethal injection or at least shot like he wanted.

Even after all the horrendous things he has done, I felt sorry for him dying like that. And many people will probably flame me for saying that, but it's my thoughts.


"Shot like he wanted"? He should have been killed in a way that made him suffer like his victims. Being shot by Sadam meant having gasoline forced down your throat so that your body would explode and burn when the bullets hit.

I have no pity for that waste of skin. His death is the logical result of the sad realisation that some people are just made wrong, and the human race is better of without them. And maybe the grim determination to rid ourselves of such vermin is a necessary survival skill.

Like the willingness to kill an animal for food. No matter how many layers of civilization we use to insulate ourselves from certain unpleasant facts, your steak is still a slice of an animal that someone had to kill and cut up.

[grizzlymint]

Lordathestrings said it. He should've been tortured, in all fairness. "Shot like he wanted?" Come now. What rights does that piece of garbage have? He commited genocide on his own people. He dumped them in mass graves. He has no rights. Hanging wasn't enough in my opinion. You reap what you sew my friends.

[ren]

Lordathestrings said it. He should've been tortured, in all fairness. "Shot like he wanted?" Come now. What rights does that piece of garbage have? He commited genocide on his own people. He dumped them in mass graves. He has no rights. Hanging wasn't enough in my opinion. You reap what you sew my friends.

He was found guilty of ordering the killing of 148 people in Dujail, not of genocide. He may have been the worst piece of scum the world has ever known, but because his execution was hurried we'll only be left with the assumption that all the whispers are true. Perhaps that's what he deserves...

So Saddam was evil and deserved torture? What if the people he tortured were evil and deserved it? Shaky ground....

[heknowsnothing]

yeah, you don't know saddams reasons for killing all of those people. In his mind, he must of had a reason, people just don't kill for no reason.

Also, lats, he may have been an evil killer, but like I originally said, does it make us an better for killing him? He could of been dealt with in other ways.

[grizzlymint]

He was found guilty of ordering the killing of 148 people in Dujail, not of genocide. He may have been the worst piece of scum the world has ever known, but because his execution was hurried we'll only be left with the assumption that all the whispers are true. Perhaps that's what he deserves...

So Saddam was evil and deserved torture? What if the people he tortured were evil and deserved it? Shaky ground....

He gassed his own people and tossed them in mass graves. I don't care what the courts accused him of specifically.

Ok, so now we just went from "does it make us any better for killing Saddam because he killed" to "what if he had a reason for killing those people." Ha. Quit fighting for this piece of scum. He deserves none of your sympathy. Do a little research on what he actually did. I wrote a paper on it last year. Wish I still had it. He gassed thousands and thousands of his own people, Kurds.

http://www.contactomagazine.com/saddamtrialkurds.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Anfal_Campaign

[ren]

He gassed his own people and tossed them in mass graves. I don't care what the courts accused him of specifically.

Yeah, because what you're accused of doesn't matter, it's whether people half way across the globe with a shaky grasp of the 'facts' think you're guilty or not. So you steal a loaf of bread, and I execute you for murder - is that OK? Is it 'justice'?

Ok, so now we just went from "does it make us any better for killing Saddam because he killed" to "what if he had a reason for killing those people." Ha. Quit fighting for this piece of scum. He deserves none of your sympathy. Do a little research on what he actually did.

I was trying to point out that the argument that it's OK to torture people if they 'deserve' it has an obvious flaw - I wasn't trying to say genocide is OK if the people deserve it... man ;) I'm not fighting for him. Like I've said if you read what I've posted, he may well have deserved to be executed, but I think he should have stood trial for all his crimes and been executed for genocide, as opposed to being executed for ordering the killing of 148 people, which is obviously a different scale of crime.

I am not sympathetic to him either... I simply think you should be held to account for your actions, not just charged with the easiest one to prove and executed. All they wanted to do was kill him, and that was seen as justice. I might even agree, I just think they should have tried to hit him with all of it first...

[grizzlymint]

Ren, lets not exaggerate now. He was still accused of murdering 100 w/e amount of people. Stealing a loaf of bread is a wee bit different hoss.

So anyways. Its essentially well known that he commited genocide on his own people. Whether you delay his fate through proving that in the courts makes no difference at all. You can prove it while hes dead.

But its all good. He's dead now. Doesn't matter.

[heknowsnothing]

stop making a big deal that it was his own people. Does it matter who's people he killed? Are you saying it would make it alright if he killed Jews, or Americans?

[aschleman]

I simply think you should be held to account for your actions, not just charged with the easiest one to prove and executed.

So you think guys like Al Capone should have never been charged for tax evasion becuase it was the only thing that the government could PROVE that he did wrong...

Or are you saying that Sadaam shouldn't have been executed for ordering the murders of 148 (I'm sure he's ordered more)??

Despite all of our views on what real "justice" is... thousands upon thousands of criminals walk the streets every year because a prosecution lawyer could not come up with "sufficient" evidence to PROVE them guilty of the crimes they were charged with... Sadaam was a dictator in the very same light that Hitler was... No one cries for Hitler. Just because the crimes against humanity that Hitler committed were on a larger scale doesn't make the crimes that Sadaam comitted that much less grotesque...

He's dead... It doesn't really matter to me whether he's rotting in a jail cell or not but the one thing I'm sure we all can agree on is: He's dead...

[hunter60]

stop making a big deal that it was his own people. Does it matter who's people he killed? Are you saying it would make it alright if he killed Jews, or Americans?


No, it doesn't matter that it was his own people or others. But the fact that it was his own really adds to the grotesquery of the crime. It can't be confused with killings under that nifty little banner we know as war. It makes the evil even more heinous.

[hunter60]

So you think guys like Al Capone should have never been charged for tax evasion becuase it was the only thing that the government could PROVE that he did wrong...

Or are you saying that Sadaam shouldn't have been executed for ordering the murders of 148 (I'm sure he's ordered more)??

Despite all of our views on what real "justice" is... thousands upon thousands of criminals walk the streets every year because a prosecution lawyer could not come up with "sufficient" evidence to PROVE them guilty of the crimes they were charged with... Sadaam was a dictator in the very same light that Hitler was... No one cries for Hitler. Just because the crimes against humanity that Hitler committed were on a larger scale doesn't make the crimes that Sadaam comitted that much less grotesque...

He's dead... It doesn't really matter to me whether he's rotting in a jail cell or not but the one thing I'm sure we all can agree on is: He's dead...

The fact that he was tried for a capital offense (several counts of it) and those were the ones they could prove. He was found guilty and executed. Even if they were only able to prove that he ordered the death of one person and murder was a capital offense, he would have been executed. He was executed for the crime(s) for which he was found guilty. Period.

The families of the the thousands of others who were murdered never had their voice heard in court, this is true. It's sad but if you wait to try someone for multiple felony counts until you can prove each and every one beyond the shadow a doubt, he'll die of old age in prison. Then who gets justice? He would have still been jailed for the crimes for which he was charged. Not the thousands of others. They still would not have had their day in court.

Although unfair in a biblical sense (eye for an eye) they need to take solace in the fact that he was served the ultimate justice and paid the final price. He paid for the crimes for which he was convicted and for those he was never charged with. It's both fair and unfair at the same time.

And yes, we can agree that he is dead. And whether it be now or 20 years from now after spending his days being beaten and abused...the point is, the man who thought he was a God, the man who orchestrated the deaths of thousands, is dead. There's no going back.

And yet despite the fact that his regime was toppled and they found him hiding, filthy, wild-eyed and unshaven, in a hole in the ground, he was tried, convicted and executed, the US and her allies are still embroiled in a war where three thousand American soldiers and Lord only knows how many allied soldiers have died. Iraqi civilians are dying daily in this war and it will continue until someone, somewhere, wakes up and sees what is happening there.

Yes, Saddam is dead. On that we can agree.

[R. Shackleferd]

I think that pretty much sums it up there Hunter...now what do we talk about? :p

[grizzlymint]

stop making a big deal that it was his own people. Does it matter who's people he killed? Are you saying it would make it alright if he killed Jews, or Americans?

*chuckle*

Talk about making something out of nothing. I believe hunter summed that one up nicely.

Good friendly dispute though guys. Good job. :D

[polansky]

Justice... does eye for an eye does justice? Bible say so... and it also says you shall not kill... right?

A lot of people wanted Saddam dead, but let's face it... does it makes the situation better? I think not... does it makes the hatred felling grow?... yes I think it does at least on some segment of the muslim world.

World situation is very delicate, and the way to go should be chosen carefully.

He had a trial, he did some pretty radical stuff?... hell yes, I think it was used to set some kind of example, a poster boy to put it in some way, but I think that the way he was executed was pretty medieval, the whole issue was bout human rights (and belive me, I can get pretty upset and crazy when someone does harm to others with lots of advantage) but the chair or lethal inyection cuold kill him too.

[R. Shackleferd]

The point of the brutality of hanging has been raised several times now, but I'd like to offer that death is often instantaneous by snapping the neck, which seemed to be the case for Saddam in fact. Take that as opposed to bleeding out from bullet wounds, or even probably the worst of all, the electric chair. There are numerous "horror" stories of that thing, that I won't go into detail about here.

[ren]

OK,

I have no problem with Al Capone being found guilty of tax-evasion, but with that fact in our minds, I don't think he should have other crimes attributed to him that he may not have been guilty of (or as guilty of) - he cheated the IRS.... and that's it.

In the same way, grizzlymint and others seem to think they know exactly what has gone down in Iraq over the years. I would think that unless you saw it with your own eyes, you're no better a judge than I am. As it stands, Saddam was guilty of ordering the killing of 148 people, and that's it - everything else is speculation.

I'm not crying for Saddam, but I have managed to evolve far enough that I understand killing someone for killing others is morally bankrupt...

It's the hippocracy that bothers me here, combined with people's determination not to see it. :rolleyes:

[ren]

What do you guys think about Bush? Should he face a similar future to Saddam?

If we believe the reports of Saddam's crimes, and so for consistency believe the figures offered for civilian deaths in Iraq post-war exceeding those under Saddam's tenure - Bush is presiding over this.... shouldn't he face trial and execution? He's a criminal too...

:confused:

[hunter60]

OK,

I have no problem with Al Capone being found guilty of tax-evasion, but with that fact in our minds, I don't think he should have other crimes attributed to him that he may not have been guilty of (or as guilty of) - he cheated the IRS.... and that's it.

In the same way, grizzlymint and others seem to think they know exactly what has gone down in Iraq over the years. I would think that unless you saw it with your own eyes, you're no better a judge than I am. As it stands, Saddam was guilty of ordering the killing of 148 people, and that's it - everything else is speculation.

I'm not crying for Saddam, but I have managed to evolve far enough that I understand killing someone for killing others is morally bankrupt...

It's the hippocracy that bothers me here, combined with people's determination not to see it. :rolleyes:


I agree with you. It's impossible for us, especially we Americans, to know precisely what went down in Iraq (except for the service folks who were or are there) because the American media is so often manipulated (on both sides of the issue). I am still not convinced that's what the forefathers were thinking when they established a free press but that's an argument for another day. As far as other crimes being attributed to him, sure, you're right. But never officially. The crimes being attributed to him are by the press and civil rights groups...etc. Not by the courts. He was charged, convicted and executed for the 148 deaths.

Those other crimes he may or may not have committed remain uncharged.

Killing someone for killing someone else is morally bankrupt. Yep. Agreed. So is not helping a poor single mother afford milk for her child. So is the fact that millions of people worlwide have no healthcare (well, you guys in Canada and the UK don't really have that issue but it's huge here...) and that there are literally millions upon millions of people worldwide who go to bed at night hungry and yet we here in US pay farmers NOT to grow crops. We have senior citizens aroudn the world who cannot afford the medications they need to live. It's wrong. Absolulutely wrong.

Is it hypocritical to execute someone who has been found guilty of a captial crime? I honestly don't know. I would love to live in a world where discussions like this are not neccessary and hopefully someday, several generations from now, they will have just that. I some times think that capital punishment is nothing more than a way of sating our lust for blood. Our need for revenge. It's one of man's more base instincts. We should be moving beyond that. We should be able to resolve conflicts without war. We should be a global community - a world without borders. We should be united for a common good.

There's one thing that keeps that from happening. Man.

I've always said that mankinds biggest threat is man himself. On the eternal stage, mankind is forever a six year old on the playground. We want all the toys, we don't share and we have a deep and instinctual dislike and distrust for people who aren't just like us. It will take a deep, heartfelt and global committment to changing mankind as a whole.

And that, my friend, is not likely to happen any time soon. :(

[hunter60]

What do you guys think about Bush? Should he face a similar future to Saddam?

If we believe the reports of Saddam's crimes, and so for consistency believe the figures offered for civilian deaths in Iraq post-war exceeding those under Saddam's tenure - Bush is presiding over this.... shouldn't he face trial and execution? He's a criminal too...

:confused:

I can't say that I disagree with you here either Ren. I have never been a fan of GW. He's reckless and a cowboy. I don't know how many deaths can be directly attributed to some of his policy choices. But if they ever decided to actually prosecute these sorts of things, the Haig would be a mighty busy place.

[ren]

Yup... and there is conflict in my thinking too - I can see sense in both sides... and you're good Nick - you almost had me on your side... :eek: ;)

I guess it's just one of those things, for me in the UK I imagine my thinking is very slightly different to if I was a US citizen. We don't have the death penalty here (though many would like to see it), so perhaps I'm a bit conditioning into being anti it anyway.

On Bush, I figure history will judge him, so a court hearing could actually help his legacy... and Blair would be wagging his tail behind him... :D

[hunter60]

Yup... and there is conflict in my thinking too - I can see sense in both sides... and you're good Nick - you almost had me on your side... :eek: ;)

I guess it's just one of those things, for me in the UK I imagine my thinking is very slightly different to if I was a US citizen. We don't have the death penalty here (though many would like to see it), so perhaps I'm a bit conditioning into being anti it anyway.

On Bush, I figure history will judge him, so a court hearing could actually help his legacy... and Blair would be wagging his tail behind him... :D


I know what you mean. We are conditioned by our environments. And you're pretty tight on your arguments too. If I didn't think they had any weight, I would not have responded. Lord, I just love a spirited debate!

[grizzlymint]

I'm gonna have to ask, in what sense is Bush a war criminal? Theres been no reports that hes been targetting women and children or others who are "innocent." He hasn't used excessive force in any way at all. (for example, nuclear power, chemical warfare, etc.) He's made no attacks on civilians. Only thing that he has done that is questionable is gotten into the wrong war with the wrong country. However, that country still harbors terrorists, had a tyrranical leader who was a murderer, wreckless, and at least at one time had biological weapons/wmd's. I wouldn't say in any sense hes a war criminal.

Lots of people like to say "wrong war, wrong time" about our current situation in Iraq. In retrospect, that may look as if it is the case, but back not too long after 9/11, we were looking for vengeance after our men, women,and children were murdered on our own soil for no apparent reason aside from a few guys who were extreme about the teachings of their religion. People like former presidential candidate John Kerry were even supporting this war. Then a year later he was up on stage next to Bush condemning.

The US government has a lot on their plates right now, between North Korea, Iran, and other countries in the middle east who would like nothing more than to erase us from the face of the planet. "Wrong war, wrong time" is nothing more than a statement made by a monday morning quarterback.

[ren]

I'm gonna have to ask, in what sense is Bush a war criminal? Theres been no reports that hes been targetting women and children or others who are "innocent." He hasn't used excessive force in any way at all. (for example, nuclear power, chemical warfare, etc.) He's made no attacks on civilians. Only thing that he has done that is questionable is gotten into the wrong war with the wrong country. However, that country still harbors terrorists, had a tyrranical leader who was a murderer, wreckless, and at least at one time had biological weapons/wmd's. I wouldn't say in any sense hes a war criminal.

Lots of people like to say "wrong war, wrong time" about our current situation in Iraq. In retrospect, that may look as if it is the case, but back not too long after 9/11, we were looking for vengeance after our men, women,and children were murdered on our own soil for no apparent reason aside from a few guys who were extreme about the teachings of their religion. People like former presidential candidate John Kerry were even supporting this war. Then a year later he was up on stage next to Bush condemning.

The US government has a lot on their plates right now, between North Korea, Iran, and other countries in the middle east who would like nothing more than to erase us from the face of the planet. "Wrong war, wrong time" is nothing more than a statement made by a monday morning quarterback.

Far too many assumptions there. The allied forces invaded Iraq, so they are bringing the war. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, has it been avenged? They may not be targetting women and children but they're managing to kill them either way, and the force can be judged as excessive I would think - US hardware Vs Iraqi harware... not much of a fight (Legal definitions not withstanding). Would the terrorists be fighting if there was no-one to fight?

All I've really been going for all this time is that I don't think there are any absolutes. We don't know anything about what's going on, all we know is what we are told...

Worry about the extremist mosque down the street, not Iran. Worry about why people do these things - if it wasn't religion, it would be some thing else.

Back to the beginning. Saddam has been executed for ordering the murder of 148 citizens in Dujail. You telling me Bush hasn't ordered at least that number? surely with the figures as they are, he would have known about at least that many?

[grizzlymint]

This war isn't against a single country. Its not the US government vs. the Iraqi government. We are battling a group that is very shady. They're always there and yet they can just as easily disappear. They are terrorists. Please don't feed me the load of bs that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. That is a thought for the naive. Iraq is/was a terrorist harboring nation. They welcomed them with open arms, Saddam Hussein being a terrorist himself. This is a war against terrorism, not against one country.

Regarding the "excessive power" we've used: Did you want us to downscale our weapons in order for it to be a fair war? You said it yourself, theres still 3,000+ American soldiers dead along with who knows how many allied soldiers. Excessive exshmessive. The innocent will die unitentionally, but incidentally it will happen. 3,000 of our innocent died already at the hands of terrorists on a single day.

"Worry about the extremist mosque down the street..."

Chief, the majority of those terrorists (if not all, I can't recall) were from Saudi Arabia. Spare me the argument of "well why not go to war with Saudi Arabia?" as I've already pointed out there is a lot on the plate right now. Not to mention, if we start persecuting our own people then everyone will yell at Bush anyways for racial stereotyping. Lose, lose situation. People bitch anyway you cut it.

Has Bush ordered anybody to death over this war yet? Not that I know of-especially his own people. This is war. You go after the most dangerous people, and you take them dead or alive. We live in a democratic country. No one person orders anyone to death. It goes through the courts.

[hunter60]

I think that pretty much sums it up there Hunter...now what do we talk about? :p

Apparently this one is not over just yet... :)

[Bluegrasslimey]

What do you guys think about it? I don't lnow honestly. I approve of the death penelty and everything but I think this was a sensitive case and I just don't see what good could can come from it.

I have a link to a pretty cheap vid of the execution but I ain't posting it here. I will divulge it by pm to people here I know.




I agree Magic, I deplore the death penalty, It's far better for a convicted murderer to spend time in jail thinking about their repulsive crimes than getting the easy option out of life. If the Victims families get a life sentence then so should the evil person responsible. As for Saddam, well he should have been given Life not Death, Although credit where credit is due, he held his head high right to the end and was a model prisoner by all accounts.

[ren]

This war isn't against a single country. Its not the US government vs. the Iraqi government. We are battling a group that is very shady. They're always there and yet they can just as easily disappear. They are terrorists. Please don't feed me the load of bs that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. That is a thought for the naive. Iraq is/was a terrorist harboring nation. They welcomed them with open arms, Saddam Hussein being a terrorist himself. This is a war against terrorism, not against one country.

Regarding the "excessive power" we've used: Did you want us to downscale our weapons in order for it to be a fair war? You said it yourself, theres still 3,000+ American soldiers dead along with who knows how many allied soldiers. Excessive exshmessive. The innocent will die unitentionally, but incidentally it will happen. 3,000 of our innocent died already at the hands of terrorists on a single day.

"Worry about the extremist mosque down the street..."

Chief, the majority of those terrorists (if not all, I can't recall) were from Saudi Arabia. Spare me the argument of "well why not go to war with Saudi Arabia?" as I've already pointed out there is a lot on the plate right now. Not to mention, if we start persecuting our own people then everyone will yell at Bush anyways for racial stereotyping. Lose, lose situation. People bitch anyway you cut it.

Has Bush ordered anybody to death over this war yet? Not that I know of-especially his own people. This is war. You go after the most dangerous people, and you take them dead or alive. We live in a democratic country. No one person orders anyone to death. It goes through the courts.

Oh dear....

It's called a 'war on terror' so you can go and kill whoever you like and call it 'war'. Are you in the CIA? If not, I guess you probably don't know if Saddam was involved in 9/11. No link has ever been proven, although it seems proof isn't important to you. There are terrorists living in the UK, does that mean you're going to come and bomb me? There are more in the US, you going to bomb yourself? Terrorists living in your country is one thing, sponsoring them (like Iran & hezbollah) is very different.

Allied forces in Iraq as near as I can figure are now fighting a group of people who want them out - they may not actually be terrorists (except as defined by you). If I invaded your country, what would you do? Sit back and let me?

The reasons you're not at war with Saudi Arabia are (top of head):

They've bought weapons from the US and UK, and are in a position to give you trouble.
They have oil
They are rich
They invest heavily in the US
They are the only 'US Friendly' state in the region

As Bush is chief of staff, every action of the US military is ultimately his responsibility. Remind me why the UN wouldn't back the war.... oh yeah, it's because it is considered illegal - which is exactly why I asked if Bush should face trial...

'Chief'...... :rolleyes:

[elklandercc]

He hasn't used excessive force in any way at all. (for example, nuclear power, chemical warfare, etc.) .

The US uses Depleted Uranium tipped shells in tanks and anti-tank weapons. All the destroyed tanks/vehicles are taken to fenced off places where they just sit. Many Iraqis (sp?) take parts off these tanks and sell them as a living, those people will most likely get cancer and since they don't have good hospitols, they will most likely die. Also, rain will wash the Uranium from the tanks and into the ground which will make its way into the water supply which will effect thousands of people including Iraqi civillians as well as American soldiers.

Heard about that from a documentary that I watched not too long ago.


Also, the war in Iraq is called "Operation Iraqi Freedom." The US wanted to get Saddam out of power and help them start their own government. Were making too many choices for Iraq and thats why so many "terrorists" are fighting back.

[aschleman]

Oh dear....

It's called a 'war on terror' so you can go and kill whoever you like and call it 'war'. Are you in the CIA? If not, I guess you probably don't know if Saddam was involved in 9/11. No link has ever been proven, although it seems proof isn't important to you. There are terrorists living in the UK, does that mean you're going to come and bomb me? There are more in the US, you going to bomb yourself? Terrorists living in your country is one thing, sponsoring them (like Iran & hezbollah) is very different.

Allied forces in Iraq as near as I can figure are now fighting a group of people who want them out - they may not actually be terrorists (except as defined by you). If I invaded your country, what would you do? Sit back and let me?

The reasons you're not at war with Saudi Arabia are (top of head):

They've bought weapons from the US and UK, and are in a position to give you trouble.
They have oil
They are rich
They invest heavily in the US
They are the only 'US Friendly' state in the region

As Bush is chief of staff, every action of the US military is ultimately his responsibility. Remind me why the UN wouldn't back the war.... oh yeah, it's because it is considered illegal - which is exactly why I asked if Bush should face trial...

'Chief'...... :rolleyes:

I'm not choosing sides to this argument... but rather I would like to point out a few things that come to mind that offer a yin to your yang...

Sadaam Hussein ruled his country by force. The goal of the US's involvment in the "war" is to implant a democratic political system... Which seems futile based on the amount of civil war that is going on over there. Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini.... All names that come to mind when you try to compare Husseins rule over his country... I think anybody that rules there counrty by inflicting TERROR could be considered a TERRORist... Justifying why any right minded person would call the "war" a "war on terror"...

If the US pulled it's forces out of Iraq at this point it would be left in worse shape than when we invaded. The right thing for us, and them, is to stay and finish what we started.

The reason that we're not at war with Saudi Arabia is mostly because their ruler isn't the most ruthless dictactor since Hitler...

Iraq has oil... in fact... I believe Bush was accused of invading Iraq simply for their supply of oil...

And all your other points on why we're not at war with Saudi Arabia are just good examples of something called politics...

I don't how much you understand the political system... President Bush has minimal pull in the decision making process... Any decision that he "makes" must first be passed by a larger party of people... It's a democratic system that ensures that no one person has enough political power to much decisions such as going to war.......

People have short memories and just like everyone claims that the US citizens only sees the sugar coated good news (it's called war propaganda... it happens...) Your government is probably showing you as many reasons to support their decision to not back the United States... they're not going to say "This could all be over if we would have chipped in and helped." Of course not, that would be political suicide.

I wasn't for the "war" effort... I didn't vote for Bush... But now that my countrymen are involved... I would be a fool not to support them whole heartedly. Not because I believe what they're doing is right... but because they don't deserve to be dying for someone elses cause. A cause that, evidently, the US is the only one willing to die for.

If we leave now the country will destroy itself until it gets so bad that everyone around the world will be looking at the US and asking "Why won't you help them?"

I believe in justice and freedom of the people... If that's what we're fighting for over there... Then good for us... If we're fighting over there becasue some personal vendetta that the Bush family has against Sadaam Hussein... I don't support our effort... The sooner we clean that place up the sooner our troops can get out. We made it a mess... we need to fix it.

This isn't meant to be an argument... just my personal thoughts on the topic. I can agree with a lot that has been said... And like I said, I didn't vote for Bush but I do support my country.

War is foolish

[acapella]

Wow, touchy topic. In my own beliefs, there's a division somewhere that makes people stop being people. Killing and torturing hundreds of people would make me think that a person has crossed over that particular border. I would never say that it's right to kill another person, however what that man did put him far beyond the realm of humanity. If by killing one man you can make hundreds more safe, then I think it's the right thing to do.

[elklandercc]

Wow, touchy topic. In my own beliefs, there's a division somewhere that makes people stop being people. Killing and torturing hundreds of people would make me think that a person has crossed over that particular border. I would never say that it's right to kill another person, however what that man did put him far beyond the realm of humanity. If by killing one man you can make hundreds more safe, then I think it's the right thing to do.
Would you kill that one man?

[aschleman]

Would you kill that one man?

If it meant sparing everyone I've ever loved... You better believe I would.

Does that make it right, no. That's something I would have to answer for in the next life, not this one. And that's an entirely different story.

[elklandercc]

If it meant sparing everyone I've ever loved... You better believe I would.

Does that make it right, no. That's something I would have to answer for in the next life, not this one. And that's an entirely different story.
If its killing one man to save other people's lives, then yes, I would as well. But if its for making others live more comfortable lives, then no I wouldn't.

We pulled him out of power, that took away his killing of innocent people. Killing him didn't make anyone more safe or bring anyone back to like, so I think it was unecessary, and as I said before, the easy way out. He's been out of power and no one is anywhere near safe in Iraq.

[acapella]

Would you kill that one man?
Would I personally? It's difficult to imagine myself in that situation, I must admit. I'm fairly certain that a man such as that, yes, I would. Of course in the actual situation I could be proven wrong, but I believe I would do it.

[R. Shackleferd]

Before this goes any further, I don't take anyone's views that differ from mine personally, nor do I think any less of them for it...so I won't be calling people names or even writing in a generally contemptuous manner.

The US uses Depleted Uranium tipped shells in tanks and anti-tank weapons. All the destroyed tanks/vehicles are taken to fenced off places where they just sit. Many Iraqis (sp?) take parts off these tanks and sell them as a living, those people will most likely get cancer and since they don't have good hospitols, they will most likely die. Also, rain will wash the Uranium from the tanks and into the ground which will make its way into the water supply which will effect thousands of people including Iraqi civillians as well as American soldiers.

Heard about that from a documentary that I watched not too long ago...
Meh, I don't buy it. It's very name is descriptive of it's nature...depleted uranium. Natural uranium is a common element already found throughout the earth's crust being in rocks, soil, and water. And no special care is needed to mine and transport the ores as it's level of radioactivity is negligible. But from there they can increase the ratios of the radioactive isotopes to higher percentages to make reactor/weapons grade uranium...what's left is the depleted uranium metal. So, natural uranium is perfectly safe and...well...natural...while depleted uranium has even less radioactivity than that. I think people just hear the word uranium and associate it with the enriched form.
...you probably don't know if Saddam was involved in 9/11. No link has ever been proven, although it seems proof isn't important to you...
Involved in 9/11 directly? Perhaps not, but the point was that he was directly involved in terrorism itself, and 9/11 proved the futility of non-action. Iraqi intelligence reports show numerous visits with top members of al-Qaeda. A memo from Saddam himself instructed his intelligence service to support terrorist attacks on U.S. soldiers in Somalia...this was written several months before the Rangers were ambushed in Mogadishu by warlord forces, also with ties to al-Qaeda.
Allied forces in Iraq as near as I can figure are now fighting a group of people who want them out - they may not actually be terrorists (except as defined by you). If I invaded your country, what would you do? Sit back and let me?
I think this is a big misconception. Ask someone in the military (which I have) who's been there who they're fighting, and most will tell you that it's militias being backed by Syria and Iran, with both actual people and by funding/weapons. In fact, these Iranian sponsors are resorting to going to the outlying villages and openly bribing the unemployed with large sums of money to join the "cause" in some manner. And this "cause" would continue without our presence, as it's ultimate goal is to topple the democratic government...they see it as a threat to their own power.
Remind me why the UN wouldn't back the war.... oh yeah, it's because it is considered illegal - which is exactly why I asked if Bush should face trial...
The UN overall is a corrupt, useless organization. What exactly have they done well? But if you want to look at "legality", then the war was never officially over from the early 90's. We called a cease fire and imposed sanctions and restrictions, which included the inspections Saddam chose to hinder and eventually refuse...thus breaking the cease fire agreement.

[elklandercc]

Meh, I don't buy it. It's very name is descriptive of it's nature...depleted uranium. Natural uranium is a common element already found throughout the earth's crust being in rocks, soil, and water. And no special care is needed to mine and transport the ores as it's level of radioactivity is negligible. But from there they can increase the ratios of the radioactive isotopes to higher percentages to make reactor/weapons grade uranium...what's left is the depleted uranium metal. So, natural uranium is perfectly safe and...well...natural...while depleted uranium has even less radioactivity than that. I think people just hear the word uranium and associate it with the enriched form.

.

Thats, true, its not as dangerous as Uranium (about 40% less I believe) and we get it from the ground. But since they stockpile all the vehicles in one spot, the DU is more concentrated and that will make it easier for people to develop health problems from it.