Saddam Execution

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:

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:

Originally Posted by: renOK,

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. :(

Originally Posted by: renWhat 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.

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

Originally Posted by: renYup... 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!

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.

Originally Posted by: grizzlymintI'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?

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.

Originally Posted by: R. ShackleferdI think that pretty much sums it up there Hunter...now what do we talk about? :p

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

Originally Posted by: magicninjaWhat 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.

Originally Posted by: grizzlymintThis 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:

Originally Posted by: grizzlymint 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.

Originally Posted by: renOh 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

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.

Originally Posted by: acapellaWow, 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?

Originally Posted by: elklanderccWould 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.

Originally Posted by: aschlemanIf 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.

Originally Posted by: elklanderccWould 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.

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.

Originally Posted by: elklanderccThe 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...[/QUOTE]
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.

Originally Posted by: ren...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...[/QUOTE]
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.
[QUOTE=ren]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.
[QUOTE=ren]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.