# Stop Saddam's Execution??



## MA-Caver (Dec 29, 2006)

> *Saddam's death sentence exposes a rift*
> Opposition to execution builds in Europe, while U.S. is for it By Doreen Carvajal Published: December 28, 2006
> PARIS: While Saddam Hussein faced death with a letter of farewell, the former Iraqi dictator's looming execution has exposed a deep divide between the United States and Europe, with opposition building in the Continent's major capitals.
> 
> ...


.
That this tyrant's sentence is being opposed by our allies (?) in Europe does'nt bode well for future relations IMO. Supposed Hitler had been caught alive before he killed himself (and Eva Braun) would they oppose his subsquent death penalty? Probably not, since he attacked the whole of Europe and everybody wanted a piece of him. But since Saddam killed only Kurds and his own people nobody seems to really care or think it's that big of a deal. What does that say about the attitudes of the Euros? That a man can be a tyrant and a mass murderer in his own country as long as he doesn't bother anybody else? Ridiculous! 
What will this do to the internal strife that's going on right now in Iraq? Saddam is calling for everyone to get along; a sentenced/dying man's plea to try and make himself look good in his final days imo. More violence is expected to be sure, when someone pulls that lever and he does the final drop. But the Euros are against it. I'm guessing that if someone dug deep enough and in the right places they'll find that Saddam was indeed supportive of terrorist attacks in Europe a couple of decades ago... if that comes out how would the Euros feel then? They'd probably be all for it.
Stalin got away with his mass murder of perhaps over 6-10 million jews during his reign. Funny how nobody is calling *that* a holocaust. Will the deaths of the hundreds of thousands in Iraq and the man responsible be remembered? Probably, but only by Iraqis. 
That it's against the geneva convention to "turn over a prisoner to his adversary's" is true and just I believe... but Saddam committed his crime(s) before the war(s) and basically he's being detained in U.S. custody as a means of protection until justice can be served and rightly so. He's being tried and judged by his own people ... not the international courts. The Iraqis who were anti-Saddam could have never achieved what we had done without help. Saddam was caught as a "prisoner of war" but technically the war is over... what are we supposed to do ... let him go?


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 29, 2006)

There are many that oppose the death penalty as a matter of principle. I am one of them. I believe Hussein should not be executed. That is also the general attitude today of many Europeans. 

Principles do not usually change based on who was the victim of the crime or criminal. To compare Hussein today, to Hitler of yesteryear just muddles the issue. It is, I believe, in large part the devastation wrought upon Europe during World War II that has delivered modern Europeans to the current anti-death-penalty stance. 

But, we will allow Hussien to become a Martyr. 

It is my guess, that in the fullness of history, the execution of Saddam Hussein will be seen as one of the many errors of President George W. Bush.


----------



## ajs1976 (Dec 29, 2006)

I don't think they are protesting his execution, but the idea of execution itself.


----------



## MA-Caver (Dec 29, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> But, we will allow Hussien to become a Martyr.


I can appreciate your stance on the issue and that's okay. But to say he'll become a Martyr is only in the eyes of those who adore him. A martyr is someone who dies for what they believe in, a cause. 
Saddam believed in death, ethnic cleansing, tyranny and oppression. You would have this person to live? How would there be justice for one who abused the term justice in his own courts and executed hundreds (if not thousands) in his own prisons if he were to live out the rest of his days behind bars? 
Still it is not US who are judging him but his own people. I support they have the *right* to determine the man's fate by according to their laws and their beliefs. I believe that if they wished for Saddam to languish behind bars for the rest of his life then we, the U.S. would also support that.


----------



## CoryKS (Dec 29, 2006)

I don't think they are protesting his execution, and I don't think they are protesting the idea of execution.  They are protesting the US, as they do in everything else.  Your question mark after allies was appropriate. 

By some accounts, Hussein is about twenty minutes from a short drop and a sudden stop.


----------



## CoryKS (Dec 29, 2006)

I'd also like to point out that we have a new definition for the word 'chutzpah'.  It's been defined as someone who kills his parents and then asks for leniency because he is an orphan.  The fact that Hussein's lawyer is invoking the Geneva Convention to escape a sentence he earned by engaging in human rights violations is mindboggling.


----------



## jdinca (Dec 29, 2006)

What I got from that is that the protest is over the death penalty in general and that it would be the same regardless of who it is. 

I agree with Michael that it is not appropriate to compare Saddam to Hitler. I think comparing him to Caucescu (sp?) would be much more appropriate. He and his wife were summarily excecuted by an angry mob without any type of trial at all. If I remember correctly, there were few international cries of condemnation. Maybe it would have been better if it had been the Iraqi's who found him and killed him on the spot. It would have taken that big red herring known as the "evil Americans led by the War Criminal George Bush", out of the equation. It would have taken a lot less time, several attorneys and judges who were killed during the trial would still be alive and the Baathist portion of the insurgency could have been minimized, saving hundreds, if not thousands of lives. I guess that's the price of democracy given that he did go to trial instead.

This was an Iraqi court of law. He was tried by Iraqi's, defended by Iraqi's (except for the American on his defense team) and convicted by Iraqi's. Duly elected officials of the Iraqi government have signed off on the execution. Blaming the decision to execute him on Bush is skewing facts to meet a personal agenda. If anything, American influence probably prevented Saddam from being killed immediately and then drug through the streets of Baghdad behind a car while onlookers defiled the corpse, as we have seen done time and again.


----------



## MA-Caver (Dec 29, 2006)

jdinca said:


> Maybe it would have been better if it had been the Iraqi's who found him and killed him on the spot.


Well if the guy did that... he wouldn't have gotten that big fat juicy reward for finding him alive now would he? 



jdinca said:


> Blaming the decision to execute him on Bush is skewing facts to meet a personal agenda. If anything, American influence probably prevented Saddam from being killed immediately and then drug through the streets of Baghdad behind a car while onlookers defiled the corpse, as we have seen done time and again.


Well it would've made the people who suffered under his reign a bit happier. They were elated to be able to pull down his statues and deface his paintings so what does that tell ya?


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 29, 2006)

MA-Caver said:


> I can appreciate your stance on the issue and that's okay. But to say he'll become a Martyr is only in the eyes of those who adore him. A martyr is someone who dies for what they believe in, a cause.
> Saddam believed in death, ethnic cleansing, tyranny and oppression. You would have this person to live? How would there be justice for one who abused the term justice in his own courts and executed hundreds (if not thousands) in his own prisons if he were to live out the rest of his days behind bars?
> Still it is not US who are judging him but his own people. I support they have the *right* to determine the man's fate by according to their laws and their beliefs. I believe that if they wished for Saddam to languish behind bars for the rest of his life then we, the U.S. would also support that.


 
If the cause he supports is 'Iraq', and the Iraq of which he was a leader, then those followers of his, those to whom he gave power, will certainly see him as a martyr. That group are known as the 'Sunni'. With Hussien's execution, many Sunni throughout the middle East will see the nation of Iraq having been handed to the Shi'ite, backed by Iran. 

I think that those who view the loss of the Sunni power structure in Iraq as a bad thing, will see a United States military as the catalyst that placed the Shi'ite's in power, and is enabling the current 'Ethnic Cleansing' we are seeing in the streets of Baghdad. If the United States Military was not proping up the Maliki government, there would be no government in Iraq (as most of the Iraqi parliment is in Europe most of the time). You can bet your last nickle that many will see the United States and its military forces as the Judge, Jury and Execution of Saddam Hussein through the proxy al Maliki government.

You state with certainty what Hussien believes : Death, Ethnic Cleansing, Tyrrany and Oppression. 

I will point to the irony that the current President of the United States oversaw quite a few capital punishments himself. Further he launched a war on a sovreign nation, comprised of a different ethnic make up, resulting in up to half a million or more deaths. And he dragged a little old lady away to jail when she protested him at campaign stops.

I don't think that George W. Bush "believes" in Death, Oppression and Ethnic Cleansing, but I think there are legitmate arguments that can be made to that effect. Therefore, I think it cautious that we withhold such statements from others.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 29, 2006)

jdinca said:


> Blaming the decision to execute him on Bush is skewing facts to meet a personal agenda.


 
That seems like a personal attack. 

However, my thoughts on the matter are an analysis of how I believe some Iraq will see the execution. In case you haven't noticed, there are a bunch of people in Iraq that are pretty upset with the current status of the government. They think that al Maliki and al Jafri are hand picked U.S. puppets. There are some - some that go by the title 'Grand Ayatollah' - that think all of the elections held in Iraq have been fraudulent, and the government of Iraq is a puppet regime put in place by the United States. 

It's hard to imagine how the situation in Iraq could get worse. But Hussein's execution is certainly not going to help. For some, it will be a blood lust fulfilling vengence. For others, it will be a call to arms. 

Ask not for whom the bell tolls .. .. ..


----------



## CoryKS (Dec 29, 2006)

Saddam swings tonight at 10pm ET



> "Our respect for human rights requires us to execute him, and there will be no review or delay in carrying out the sentence," al-Maliki said.


----------



## MA-Caver (Dec 29, 2006)

From the same article... 


> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061229/ap_on_re_mi_ea/saddam
> In his Friday sermon, a mosque preacher in the Shiite holy city of Najaf called Saddam's execution "God's gift to Iraqis."
> 
> "Oh, God, you know what Saddam has done! He killed millions of Iraqis in prisons, in wars with neighboring countries and he is responsible for mass graves," said Sheik Sadralddin al-Qubanji, a member of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in
> Iraq, known as SCIRI, a dominant party in al-Maliki's coalition. "Oh God, we ask you to take revenge on Saddam."


----------



## Mariachi Joe (Dec 29, 2006)

The people of Iraq should decide how to deal with Sadam.  If they chose the death penalty I think the international community should respect that.  I don't think Europe made any comments when Peru wanted to excecute Pinoche.


----------



## Don Roley (Dec 29, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> To compare Hussein today, to Hitler of yesteryear just muddles the issue.






			
				michealward said:
			
		

> You state with certainty what Hussien believes : Death, Ethnic Cleansing, Tyrrany and Oppression.
> 
> I will point to the irony that the current President of the United States oversaw quite a few capital punishments himself. Further he launched a war on a sovreign nation, comprised of a different ethnic make up, resulting in up to half a million or more deaths. And he dragged a little old lady away to jail when she protested him at campaign stops.



Your stance hardly seems consistent.

Bush did put convicted people to death after a trial. Hussein killed little children because someone from their village made him mad. A rather insane woman stalked him and broke laws and got dragged away. Hussein would take whoever he wanted and have them shot.

It seems hardly a case that Bush is as bad as Hussein. Your figures and facts are off quite a bit.

But I am amused by the way that some people are for us turning everything over to the Iraqi government and going home because it is their country and they should be allowed to do what they want. But now they are saying that we should not let them carry out the execution that they tried him on their own. CoryKS makes a good point about how the lawyer trying to invoke the Geneva convention is just silly since he seems to have no problem with Hussein using it as toilet paper. And the case is not about crimes done during war.

Am I the only guy that is going to host a beer when the news of this creeps death comes through? It may be petty and not in the spirit of remaining above petty emotions for a warrior. But after seeing some of the corpses of children being pulled from a mass grave, I can't think of anyone I want to see on an express ride to hell.


----------



## bydand (Dec 29, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> Am I the only guy that is going to host a beer when the news of this creeps death comes through? It may be petty and not in the spirit of remaining above petty emotions for a warrior. But after seeing some of the corpses of children being pulled from a mass grave, I can't think of anyone I want to see on an express ride to hell.



Nope, you will not be the only one.  I'll hoist one up with you from this side of the globe!  Petty or not, anybody that could do that to kids should go slow and painfully in my opinion, but, because I do not make that decision (thank you very much) it shall be as the proper authorities wish.


----------



## Monadnock (Dec 29, 2006)

Kumpai!! Mr. Roley.

I'll be tippin one back with you in spirit.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 29, 2006)

Official: Saddam to be executed tonight


----------



## jdinca (Dec 29, 2006)

MA-Caver said:


> Well if the guy did that... he wouldn't have gotten that big fat juicy reward for finding him alive now would he?
> 
> Well it would've made the people who suffered under his reign a bit happier. They were elated to be able to pull down his statues and deface his paintings so what does that tell ya?



I believe the reward would have been forthcoming were he brought in "slung over a saddle", also.

Exactly my point. Bringing Saddam to trial, even if there may have been flaws, was a drastic improvement over what he did to his own people and what his people would have done to him in return. Agree or disagree with why we're there in the first place, this aspect is an improvement.


----------



## jdinca (Dec 29, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> That seems like a personal attack.
> 
> However, my thoughts on the matter are an analysis of how I believe some Iraq will see the execution. In case you haven't noticed, there are a bunch of people in Iraq that are pretty upset with the current status of the government. They think that al Maliki and al Jafri are hand picked U.S. puppets. There are some - some that go by the title 'Grand Ayatollah' - that think all of the elections held in Iraq have been fraudulent, and the government of Iraq is a puppet regime put in place by the United States.
> 
> ...



Last I checked, there were 8 million people who voted in the election. I'm awed by our ability to get that many people to vote our way. I don't recall Sistani calling the elections fraudulent. I'm sure that none of the factions in Iraq have their own agendas or want to skew the facts their own way. I mean, that would almost be human nature! 

I'd be pretty po'ed with that government too. Especially if I'd been led to believe that democracy happens overnight. There was a violent struggle in this country for 15 years after our government was formed. 

I think the way the verdict and execution in Iraq is viewed is going to be the same way we view such things in this country. The opinions are going to be determined by individual perspective, ideology and what "experts" one chooses to listen to. In other words, they are going to react like most humans would, it's just that those who disagree are much more emotionally charged and have lots of weapons to make their opinions heard. I applaud the Iraqi's for having the courage to follow through.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 29, 2006)

MA-Caver said:


> They were elated to be able to pull down his statues and deface his paintings so what does that tell ya?


 
You are aware that those 'elated' Iraqi's who pulled down the big statue were all part of Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress - flown in from England by the United States Military to be on display in that photo op - aren't you?


EDIT - Sorry, it wasn't the Iraqi National Congress ... it was the 'Free Iraqi Forces Militia'. 

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2842.htm

END EDIT


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 29, 2006)

jdinca said:


> I don't recall Sistani calling the elections fraudulent.


 
You're inability to recall a fact, does not mean the fact does not exist.



This is just a pointer - I'm sure you can continue with more in depth research, if you are inclined. 

http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/1043



> Indeed, our colonial provisional administration was so afraid of the people's will that we *cancelled ad-hoc local elections* all across Iraq in June of 2003. (Subsequent protests in Najaf, the home city of the Shiite religious establishment led by Grand Ayatollah Sistani, included banners that read, _"Canceled elections are evidence of bad intentions."_)


----------



## Don Roley (Dec 29, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> You are aware that those 'elated' Iraqi's who pulled down the big statue were all part of Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress - flown in from England by the United States Military to be on display in that photo op - aren't you?
> 
> 
> EDIT - Sorry, it wasn't the Iraqi National Congress ... it was the 'Free Iraqi Forces Militia'.
> ...



No, they were not. There may have been a case or two of certain groups pulling down statues and such, but there were many, many more of groups of ordinary citizens defacing pictures and such.

Gee, now some folks are saying that Hussein was a popularly elected president. The links you gave are great examples of that and were some of the most partisan, anti- Bush ones I have seen in a long time. They pretty much show their partisanship very clearly, but don't seem to back up what they say with facts. Even so, they do not give any quotes by Sistani that the elections held were fraudulant as you seem to think they do.

I guess the re-writing of history is just beggining with the left as they try to paint Hussein as a good man just to try to toss mud at Bush. It all seems very sick to me.

Speakling of sick- I have already chosen a song to sing and dance to when I hear Hussein has stopped dancing at the end of his rope.


----------



## bydand (Dec 29, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2842.htm
> 
> http://www.needlenose.com/node/view/1043



Wow, those links were so far left I had to scoot the monitor over to read all of them.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 29, 2006)

bydand said:


> Wow, those links were so far left I had to scoot the monitor over to read all of them.


 
Wow ... Funny.

But, when you moved the monitor, did you find anything that counters the assertions. How does Mr. Colbert put it .... 

_"Reality has a well known liberal bias"_​


----------



## bydand (Dec 29, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> Speakling of sick- I have already chosen a song to sing and dance to when I hear Hussein has stopped dancing at the end of his rope.




Don, thanks for the link.  I had forgotten all about Oingo Boingo.  I think I'll kick it up as well when I hear the bugger is stretching rope, couldn't happen to a nicer fella.  As for the whole debate about taking somebody elses life, shoot it is better than giving the rotten bastard a warm place to sleep and feeding him the rest of his life.  $10 worth of rope and 10 minutes with a backhoe and the expense is over.


----------



## bydand (Dec 29, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> Wow ... Funny.
> 
> But, when you moved the monitor, did you find anything that counters the assertions. How does Mr. Colbert put it ....
> _"Reality has a well known liberal bias"_​



Spoken like a true liberal media personality.  Not you, but Mr. Colbert.  

I actually like reading your posts because I usually do not think in the liberal mindset and it is a chance for me to look over the links and arguments you put forth, and question my own long held stands on different issues.  I don't think we will ever see eye to eye on most issues, but it is refreshing to get a different view every once in a while.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Dec 29, 2006)

According to the news preparations are complete and Saddam is at the execution site.

Got my drink.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Dec 29, 2006)

It's done.

Al-Arabiya says bye-bye.

Diet 7UP has never tasted so sweet.

*glug*

Burn in hell, you worthless bastard.


----------



## Kacey (Dec 29, 2006)

It is, indeed, done.  Per MSNBC (the story is being updated, so the quote may change in the future):



> MSNBC staff and news service reports
> Updated: 2 minutes ago
> 
> 
> BAGHDAD, Iraq - Three years after he was hauled from a hole in the ground by pursuing U.S. forces, Saddam Hussein was hanged Saturday under a sentence imposed by an Iraqi court, al-Hurra TV, al-Arabiya and Sky News TV reported.


----------



## terryl965 (Dec 29, 2006)

Well it did not cost me nothing so the rope was worth it, I hope he has a warm place where he is at.


----------



## Don Roley (Dec 29, 2006)

Andy Moynihan said:


> Burn in hell, you worthless bastard.



I'll drink to that! :cheers: 

_Ding Dong the witch is dead!

Which old witch?

The Wicked Witch!

Ding Dong the Wicked Witch is dead!!!!!_


----------



## arnisador (Dec 30, 2006)

Yeah, I hate to be happy about anyone's death, but for him...I can see making an exception. Good riddance to bad rubbish.


----------



## MA-Caver (Dec 30, 2006)

arnisador said:


> Yeah, I hate to be happy about anyone's death, but for him...I can see making an exception. Good riddance to bad rubbish.


As my brother said to me last night via IM... "well now that's done... on to the next despot!"


----------



## Drac (Dec 30, 2006)

Don Roley said:


> I'll drink to that! :cheers:
> 
> _Ding Dong the witch is dead!_
> 
> ...


 
The next round is on me Don...


----------



## MA-Caver (Dec 30, 2006)

This from Newsweek 





> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16401644/site/newsweek/
> 
> *I Saw Fear, He Was Afraid*
> In a NEWSWEEK exclusive, the man hired to videotape Saddam Husseins execution recalls the brutal dictators humble final moments.
> ...


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 30, 2006)

CoryKS said:


> I don't think they are protesting his execution, and I don't think they are protesting the idea of execution. They are *protesting the US, as they do in everything else. Your question mark after allies was appropriate. *
> 
> By some accounts, Hussein is about twenty minutes from a short drop and a sudden stop.


 
You are making a very big assumption about an awful lot of people.It's insulting actually.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 30, 2006)

http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=5096&start=0&&&edition=1&ttl=20061230173018

Some views from all around the world.


----------



## Tez3 (Dec 30, 2006)

The British Governments Official view


http://news.aol.co.uk/ex-leader-held-to-account-beckett/article/20061230050209990007


----------



## bydand (Dec 30, 2006)

Tez3 said:


> The British Governments Official view
> 
> 
> http://news.aol.co.uk/ex-leader-held-to-account-beckett/article/20061230050209990007




Very good statement and one that reflects how I feel as well.  It isn't my say, or anybody elses; other than the court that convicted him, what his punishment sould have been.  AS long as it was carried out according to the principals and laws of the courts of the land that convicted him, we as other countries and certanly not as individuals have the right to say weather or not they were wrong.  If the acceptable method of carrying out the death penality was hanging by the toenails until dead, then so be it.  Just as Iraq would have no right telling either the US or the UK how to met out punishment, then neither do we as outside countries have the right, or reason to tell Iraq what was acceptable.


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 30, 2006)

I'm glad he was killed. That is a nice New Years gift for everyone, in my opinion.

I think that there needs to be a seperation between death penalty on a state level and death penalty on an international level where folks are guilty of multiple acts of terrorism and genocide.

I am not for the death penalty on a state level. This is not because I am against killing someone who is a severe danger to society; it is because there is too much room for mistake. There are people, even with today's technology, who have been sentanced for crimes that was found later that they didn't commit. I am not for putting someone to death erroniously; and I think that there is still too much risk for that on a state level.

On an international level when we are dealing with terrorists and brutal dictators where there is NO QUESTION that these people are guilty, I am not opposed to doing away with them. In fact, anything I can do to help. I see this more as demon slaying rather then killing a person.

So, I think that there should be a seperation here. There is a huge difference between death penalty on a state level and death penalty on an international war crimes level.

So, I'll make sure I'll be toasting one to Saddam's demise this New Years! :cheers:


----------



## jdinca (Dec 30, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> You're inability to recall a fact, does not mean the fact does not exist.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Interestingly enough, what you are pointing to is the local/municipal elections held in '03. Sistani did have a problem with those but was in full support of national elections to elect the government, and had even issued a fatwa stating that voting in the election was everybodies religious duty. Hardly something you would expect from a man who felt the elections were fraudelent.

I'm sorry that you chose to only point to one side of the story. Your perspective would be better served if you chose a balanced approach when presenting your facts, even if you choose to draw different conclusions from them.


----------



## MA-Caver (Dec 30, 2006)

Tez3 said:


> > Originally Posted by *CoryKS  *
> > I don't think they are protesting his execution, and I don't think they are protesting the idea of execution. They are protesting the US, as they do in everything else. Your question mark after allies was appropriate.
> >
> > By some accounts, Hussein is about twenty minutes from a short drop and a sudden stop.
> ...


Tez, I don't see how I could've been insulting to the allies by placing a (??) there. That they're giving the U.S. flak about being supportive of the execution of a mass-murderer, tyrant and dictator has to give rise to the questionablity of their support to the U.S. in general. We helped a people who could not otherwise help themselves. Mass graves, mass executions, *chemical warfare*(which was banned after WWI !!) on an otherwise totally defenseless people (Kurds), harboring terrorists and so on. Did anyone do anything about it. The U.S. was the first to step in, true, the allies came in support... then (most of them) left shortly after, leaving us to "clean up the mess." Is it any wonder I put (??) after allies? By the way... I'm talking the whole of europe ... not just one country in particular... if whatever country is supportive of us by helping Iraq execute their biggest criminal ...then two pip-pips-hooray for them! Welcome to the right side of the fence!  
At the moment I don't care about getting the neg rep for my earliest post/reply to this thread. I *don't* appreciate it being unidentified but that's another story... I stand by what I say as always... doesn't suit anyone? ... :idunno: not my problem.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Dec 30, 2006)

Well hell, I'm not gonna lie and say everyone's behaved like angels. I want us out of there too.

I'd been on the fence for awhile, and up till very recently i did still support the war in Iraq.


This was mostly based on my belief that Saddam was a horrible genocidal leader who the Iraqi people needed to get rid of. Nothing grey-area about it. He was a bad guy and needed to leave. However, I just read last week that the Iraqi Gov't (for however much it can be called a government) has reached a "security agreement" with Iran. 

IRAN. 

Every day American soldiers die in the hopes that Iraq will become a free and modern democracy. They die for them and then the Iraqi's reach a security agreement with a leader who insults, berates, and challenges the US, UN, and NATO constantly. 

I'm beginning to lose hope in these people. And by 'these people', I mean Iraq, Palestine, Iran, and Syria. The Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad just sent a letter to the US in which he said  that he wanted the US "to promote and protect freedom and human dignity and integrity" and that "We all deplore injustice, the trampling of peoples' rights and the intimidation and humiliation of human beings". I want to laugh, but instead I'm shaking my head. Iran has a HORRIBLE human rights record and here they go talking about it like they're ****ing Ghandi. The Iraqi's fight amongst themselves constantly and blame the US for it. The Syrians bomb the lebanese promote terrorism and just plain make everything worse. The Palestinians say that they don't support terrorism but ELECT HAMAS IN A DEMOCRATIC ELECTION. That's the message of the Palestinians: We are terrorists, we elect terrorists, we say we want peace when we really just Israel reduced to rubble. 

I have a message for the Palestinian, Syrian, and Iranian people: Israel is going to stay. They know how to act like civilized human beings. They OBEY peace agreements (at least until you **** it all up). Deal with it.

I want to have some hope in those countries,  but I'm beginning to think that they don't deserve it. They don't deserve Americans dying for them when they seem bound and determined to make it their collective national pastime to throw it all to hell.

Seriously. I want someone to prove me wrong. 


But for now ( and I'm gonna do it AGAIN on New Year's), I will take some small comfort that this execution, however much any group tries to whine and rules-lawyer around it, means just one thing:


That's one more monster gone.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 30, 2006)

jdinca said:


> Interestingly enough, what you are pointing to is the local/municipal elections held in '03. Sistani did have a problem with those but was in full support of national elections to elect the government, and had even issued a fatwa stating that voting in the election was everybodies religious duty. Hardly something you would expect from a man who felt the elections were fraudelent.
> 
> I'm sorry that you chose to only point to one side of the story. Your perspective would be better served if you chose a balanced approach when presenting your facts, even if you choose to draw different conclusions from them.


 
And where does the Grand Ayatollah stand today, concerning the governance of Iraq?

In '03 he disapproved. Several elections were held, with which he allowed his consent. And today, one of the 12 Grand Ayatollahs refuses to take any questions or provide any input the governance of Iraq. Like Pontius Pilate - he has washed his hands of the current regime in Iraq. 

So, whether Sistani pronounced the elections fraudulent, or not, is irrelevant. The question we should be asking, is are those 8 million who you say voted, going to follow the government they voted for, or their religious leader


Lastly, facts need not be balanced. They must be recognized as facts. Then, we apply our cognitive powers to those facts to draw analysis. 

And my analysis has been very good on much of this Iraq stuff. Many don't seem to like it, because they think I 'Hate Bush' or 'Hate America' or 'Want the Terrorists to Win'. But those emotional arguments don't change the facts. Regardless of where you interpret the balanced.


----------



## Don Roley (Dec 30, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> So, whether Sistani pronounced the elections fraudulent, or not, is irrelevant.



So why did you bring it up in post #10 when you wrote,



> There are some - some that go by the title 'Grand Ayatollah' - that think all of the elections held in Iraq have been fraudulent,



I smell a thread drift away from the subject of Hussein's death and into yet another bashing of the enemy political party. 

Sistani seems to be cooming around to the US side of things if recent reports in the IHT are any indication. But since he does not make many public statements, it is hard to say. And, of course, Sistani is the subject for another thread. But he certainly did not say that any of the elections held so far were fraudulant.


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 30, 2006)

Tulisan said:


> On an international level when we are dealing with terrorists and brutal dictators where there is NO QUESTION that these people are guilty, I am not opposed to doing away with them. In fact, anything I can do to help. I see this more as demon slaying rather then killing a person.


 
And that really is the point, isn't it??

To support things like state-sanctioned murder, it is essential to erect fantasies of dehumanization and emotional separation to psychologically rationalize what is wholesale brutality (i.e., the methodical and deliberate killing of a defenseless human being). Ergo, rhetoric like "demon", "monster", "scum", and so on are constructed to do everything possible to psychologically distance oneself from the target. Because the truth of the behavior --- the murder of another human being --- is simply too distressing, it becomes necessary to construct lies to appease the fragile psyche.

It should be pointed out that similar psychological processes are intiated by both victimizers and victims in conflict situations. They distance themselves from the Other and find ways to justify their actions.

As for me, I take the wholesale jubilation at the murder of another human being --- no matter who he or she is --- as proof positive that we are decades, perhaps centuries, from every winning the "War on Terror".

But by all means, drink to one's satisfied sense of bloodlust. I've always preferred sobriety myself.

Laterz.


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 30, 2006)

heretic888 said:


> And that really is the point, isn't it??
> 
> To support things like state-sanctioned murder, it is essential to erect fantasies of dehumanization and emotional separation to psychologically rationalize what is wholesale brutality (i.e., the methodical and deliberate killing of a defenseless human being). Ergo, rhetoric like "demon", "monster", "scum", and so on are constructed to do everything possible to psychologically distance oneself from the target. Because the truth of the behavior --- the murder of another human being --- is simply too distressing, it becomes necessary to construct lies to appease the fragile psyche.
> 
> ...


 
Sure, equate people like Saddam with other productive members of society to try to prove your (apparent) stance against putting him to death. Yes, many good people out there don't want to realize that another human being could be responsible for things like mass genocide. But, that's great... we can simply say that those people are just like Hussien, Hitler, or whomever else we please to make our point. That sure seems like the logical thing to do.  

I, however, do not need to distance myself from the enemy. I could meet Hussein's grandma, cousins, and grandkids and have them tell me how "human" he is, and my opinion wouldn't change. Someone directly responsible for rape and torture rooms, mass genocide, and other fun atrocities simply need to be removed from this world. And on the rare occasion that this occurs, then I believe that it calls for a celebration.

Here, here... I will drink to that, while other nutless geeks will be soberly reading Ken Wilber and trying to construct various new ways to feel philosophically superior to ones fellow man.

Laterz...


----------



## bydand (Dec 30, 2006)

heretic888 said:


> And that really is the point, isn't it??
> 
> To support things like state-sanctioned murder, it is essential to erect fantasies of dehumanization and emotional separation to psychologically rationalize what is wholesale brutality (i.e., the methodical and deliberate killing of a defenseless human being). Ergo, rhetoric like "demon", "monster", "scum", and so on are constructed to do everything possible to psychologically distance oneself from the target. Because the truth of the behavior --- the murder of another human being --- is simply too distressing, it becomes necessary to construct lies to appease the fragile psyche.
> 
> ...



Yes Sadam probably enjoyed the smell of a fresh morning after a rain, or a fine cigar, even a well cooked meal followed by a fine wine, then the comfort of a loved one.  He was a Father, somebodys son, everything that I am, but, he was even more, he was a mass murderer as well as being everything that makes us human.  If they needed somebody to attatch the electrodes, drop the posion gas pellet, push drugs through an IV, squeeze the trigger, pull the lever, tighten the noose, or whatever means the *courts* had decided to execute him, they could have given me a call, and found a helping hand.  I would have no problem ending the life (Go ahead and call it state sactioned murder, doesn't faze me in the least) of a *human* like him.  Does that make me cold blooded?  to some probably, but ask anybody who really knows me and you would find a warm, welcoming individual who just believes that giving a man like this better living conditions and better health care than hard working, honest individuals is more appalling than the distastefull job of executing them and getting the job over with and the expense done with.

The Human Being formally known as living breathing Sadam is dead, killed at the hands of fellow human beings that have a sense of right and wrong. Cheers :cheers:


----------



## Mariachi Joe (Dec 31, 2006)

guess karma finally caught up to old Sadam


----------



## Shark (Dec 31, 2006)

Europeans are generally against the death penalty, that is a matter of choice.
Suddam was a tyrant no doubt about it and murdered thousands but could hardly be compared to Hitler or especially Stalin.
Was he such a threat to USA? Weapons of mass distruction?? 
Iraq is a long way from America but unfortunately more and more American families have news of their sons and daughters deaths in Iraq.
Are the Iraqi people better off than before? Wasnt a great place before but looks worse and more dangerous now. Are they grateful for being "saved"? Im not sure.
Is America better off and safer?? I am sure they have done well from getting control of that oil but at what cost? 
Since the war on terror is USA safer?
Everyone is entitled to their opinion and influenced by media in their own county but i think that the invasion of Iraq has not been a great success for anyone.


----------



## ed-swckf (Dec 31, 2006)

Tez3 said:


> You are making a very big assumption about an awful lot of people.It's insulting actually.


 
This is true, it certainly doesn't accurately describe what i've experienced.


----------



## Don Roley (Dec 31, 2006)

Shark said:


> Suddam was a tyrant no doubt about it and murdered thousands but could hardly be compared to Hitler or especially Stalin.
> Was he such a threat to USA? Weapons of mass distruction??



He was not a Stalin merely because he was not compent enough.

And where were the WMDs that the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden had? Where is the anthrax that Hussein said he had, but failed to account for? After an anthrax attack and scores of searches in Iraq, we still do not know what he did with the stuff he admited he had at one point.

The danger of a person like Hussein was that he saw what a group of criminals in a pariah country like Afghanistan could do, and how whoever caused all the panic the anthrax attacks got away with it clean (assuming he had nothing to do with it) and you can be pretty damn sure that he would be thinking about how he could do the same thing.

Remember, this is a guy who *twice* tried to go toe to toe with the US military, tried to run a secret bio weapons program while inspectors were in his country (actually, it was blown by his son- in- law and not the inspectors) and tried to kill an ex- president of the US..

And you expect him to *not* try something of the same sort, and maybe get lucky?

I am glad he is dead just so we do not have to deal with his efforts to cause that type of damage on us. He would have tried, I am sure of that. Better he is dead that we have to deal with him.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 31, 2006)

I will re-iterate two points. 

When the History of our time is written, it will be noted that Saddam Hussein was put to death for the killing of 148 men in the village of Dujil, in retribution for an assassination attempt. Rape Rooms, Mass Murder, Torture Rooms, and Mass Genoncide (is that redundant?) have not been proved. And will now never be proved in any sense of a 'fair trial' - as the accused can not stand before the court. 

And, to continuely references the 'people of Iraq' and the 'Courts' of Iraq assumes as a foregone conclusion that *this* government of Iraq evolves into the eventual government of Iraq. If the country of Iraq evolves, and devolves, and eventually becomes something else; this verdict will be seen, through the lens of history, as Victor's Justice.

EDIT
I will amend and extend my remarks ... 

This article is a bit spooky. http://blogs.abcnews.com/bizarrebazaar/2006/12/saddams_hanging.html#comment-27102907



> There are five men in black face masks who are visible on the gallows platform around Saddam, acting as guards.  As they guide him towards the trap door and put the noose over his head, they start chanting religious slogans with the names of Moqtada al Sadr (the head of the Mahdi army, accused of organizing death squads against Sunnis) and Baqr al Sadr (the father-in-law of Moqtada).  Saddam, a Sunni, is outraged at this last-minute provocation,  and tells them to &#8220;go to hell.&#8221;



How many times, so far, has the United States Military been in armed conflict with Moqtada al Sadr? By the way, his father also had the first name of 'Grand Ayatollah'. 

END EDIT


----------



## Don Roley (Dec 31, 2006)

michaeledward said:


> When the History of our time is written, it will be noted that Saddam Hussein was put to death for the killing of 148 men in the village of Dujil, in retribution for an assassination attempt. Rape Rooms, Mass Murder, Torture Rooms, and Mass Genoncide (is that redundant?) have not been proved. And will now never be proved in any sense of a 'fair trial' - as the accused can not stand before the court.



Just recently, we had a conference that debated if the holocaust in fact ever happened. There are still folks that think the moon shots were faked. You can't expect _everyone_ to agree to even the most obvious facts.

But I feel justified in saying, along with a great number of logical folks, that Hussein did in fact gas innocent women and children and other vile acts.

And I am glad he is dead because of it. I will not apologize for that, nor feel guilt, or even feel any less than those that try to argue otherwise.

*I am glad this ****er is dead!!!!*


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 31, 2006)

Tulisan said:


> Sure, equate people like Saddam with other productive members of society to try to prove your (apparent) stance against putting him to death. Yes, many good people out there don't want to realize that another human being could be responsible for things like mass genocide. But, that's great... we can simply say that those people are just like Hussien, Hitler, or whomever else we please to make our point. That sure seems like the logical thing to do.



I don't recall equating Saddam Hussein with "other productive members of society", but thanks for the non-sequiter. I suppose such amorally opportunistic Straw Man arguments are necessary here, since the only thing justifying one's position is emotionally-fed bloodlust and vengeance. It is Freudian sublimation at its finest.



Tulisan said:


> I, however, do not need to distance myself from the enemy.



Tell yourself whatever lies you need to in order to protect your psyche. The fact you referred to this as "demon slaying" says otherwise. As I said before, it is important to erect such dehumanization fantasies to escape from the truth of the matter.

This, by the way, is a common propaganda campaign during wartime, when it becomes necessary to transform the enemy into the Other.



Tulisan said:


> Here, here... I will drink to that, while other nutless geeks will be soberly reading Ken Wilber and trying to construct various new ways to feel philosophically superior to ones fellow man.



One is reminded of the Biblical verse: Love thine enemy.... unless you really, really don't like him, then it's okay.

Wait, that's not right....


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 31, 2006)

bydand said:


> Yes Sadam probably enjoyed the smell of a fresh morning after a rain, or a fine cigar, even a well cooked meal followed by a fine wine, then the comfort of a loved one. He was a Father, somebodys son, everything that I am, but, he was even more, he was a mass murderer as well as being everything that makes us human. If they needed somebody to attatch the electrodes, drop the posion gas pellet, push drugs through an IV, squeeze the trigger, pull the lever, tighten the noose, or whatever means the *courts* had decided to execute him, they could have given me a call, and found a helping hand. I would have no problem ending the life (Go ahead and call it state sactioned murder, doesn't faze me in the least) of a *human* like him. Does that make me cold blooded? to some probably, but ask anybody who really knows me and you would find a warm, welcoming individual who just believes that giving a man like this better living conditions and better health care than hard working, honest individuals is more appalling than the distastefull job of executing them and getting the job over with and the expense done with.
> 
> The Human Being formally known as living breathing Sadam is dead, killed at the hands of fellow human beings that have a sense of right and wrong. Cheers :cheers:


Hey, man, whatever lies you need to tell yourself. I realize the clarion call of the almighty Ego is more persuasive than moral altruism, so I can't really say I'm surprised.

But, like, whatever.


----------



## bydand (Dec 31, 2006)

heretic888 said:


> Hey, man, whatever lies you need to tell yourself. I realize the clarion call of the almighty Ego is more persuasive than moral altruism, so I can't really say I'm surprised.
> 
> But, like, whatever.



Ego?  If you had even a miniscule knowledge of me personally, you would know how off that statement is. Being morally altruistic is not just the whole  wishy-washy stand most liberal proponents would have you believe.  Happy, happy, joy, joy doesn't work in the world.  I wish it did much more than it does, but the simple fact is that it does not.  Man by our nature  is not a creature that embraces  the whole moral altrusim ideal I'm afraid.   Cutting the bad out of  society isn't egoism, it is taking a threat out of the picture so they cannot harm others.  Locking them up for life is one option, not the one that the people who found Saddam quilty would be best for the situation or the culture.  You pull the whole altruism/egoism argument out and I find it quite funny that you are using an egoism type argument to "prove" how altruistic you are.  Kind of ironic don't you think.  Oh yeah, I'm just a "dumb" Electrician and shouldn't know the difference.    wrong again, just because a person doesn't spout all the big words all the time doesn't mean they don't know how to, just that they choose not to.


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 31, 2006)

bydand said:


> Ego? If you had even a miniscule knowledge of me personally, you would know how off that statement is. Being morally altruistic is not just the whole wishy-washy stand most liberal proponents would have you believe. Happy, happy, joy, joy doesn't work in the world. I wish it did much more than it does, but the simple fact is that it does not. Man by our nature is not a creature that embraces the whole moral altrusim ideal I'm afraid. Cutting the bad out of society isn't egoism, it is taking a threat out of the picture so they cannot harm others. Locking them up for life is one option, not the one that the people who found Saddam quilty would be best for the situation or the culture. You pull the whole altruism/egoism argument out and I find it quite funny that you are using an egoism type argument to "prove" how altruistic you are. Kind of ironic don't you think. Oh yeah, I'm just a "dumb" Electrician and shouldn't know the difference.  wrong again, just because a person doesn't spout all the big words all the time doesn't mean they don't know how to, just that they choose not to.


 
I apologize for my previous comments. While I stand by my position, there was no reason for this to devolve into ad hominems. 

I suppose that's what I get for posting before breakfast.


----------



## bydand (Dec 31, 2006)

No problems Heretic, I actually enjoy reading your responses *90% *of the time because it shows the other side of the coin I am looking at.  Having a picture of both sides of an issue is what is needed for an informed decision on which side to hold onto. The post I responded to fell into the other 10% I'm afraid .  Happens to everybody.  Have a good one today and it looks like this thread is about yet another topic we will have to respectfully disagree on.


----------



## Kacey (Dec 31, 2006)

* Mod. Note. 
Please, keep the conversation polite and respectful.

-Karen Cohn
-MT Moderator-*


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 31, 2006)

heretic888 said:


> Tell yourself whatever lies you need to in order to protect your psyche.


 
Like the lies you tell yourself every day so you can feel better then everyone. We can do a search on your name, heretic, and we will find that almost every one of your posts are designed so that you can feel better, or on a philisophical higher ground, then everyone else. Your recent string of posts here are no different. It is a shame that your self-esteem is that low.

But you do what you want, say whatever you want, and pseudo-psychoanalyze however you want regarding me. Everyone else can see that the facts are much more simple then you propose; that being that I simply don't think that mass murderers and international terrorists should be left alive to potentially do more damage. And there are many who would agree...


----------



## MA-Caver (Dec 31, 2006)

Tulisan said:


> Everyone else can see that the facts are much more simple then you propose; that being that I simply don't think that mass murderers and international terrorists should be left alive to potentially do more damage. And there are many who would agree...


Aye, I'm one of those who agree with that. Do you let the cockroaches roam rampant throughout your house? Do you let the vermin mice scurry about in your walls? Do you let a pack of wild dogs roam free on your streets? Or even more so... do you allow disease to run rampant so it can infect others? Of course not. You get rid of it. Letting Saddam alive where he could write letters to encourage the fight to continue, like Osama hiding in some hole somewhere continues to spread the message of hate and murder. Twisting the minds of potentially good and decent young men to turn them to suicide bombers and other acts of terrorism.
Osama, Saddam and all their like-predecessors before them were the diseases of man... no, excuse me, *human*-kind and some infections have to be cut out.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Dec 31, 2006)

Remember boys and girls, today's word of the day is..................




























.......RECIDIVISM.


----------



## Ninjamom (Dec 31, 2006)

...and of course, death-by-hanging has been shown to be 100% effective in reducing recidivism!


----------



## dart68 (Dec 31, 2006)

*.......RECIDIVISM.*

Dang it, where's my dictionary?  .......Ah, yes, I see.

It could be said then that one definition that can no longer be used of someone that has been executed is....repeat offender.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Dec 31, 2006)

Ninjamom said:


> ...and of course, death-by-hanging has been shown to be 100% effective in reducing recidivism!


 
Amongst the people hanged it does and that's all I care At least that way you can guarantee that's ONE case they cant hurt anyone anymore which is in my considered opinion a better deal than anything else our justice system can offer with regard to such diseased life forms.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Dec 31, 2006)

dart68 said:


> *.......RECIDIVISM.*
> 
> Dang it, where's my dictionary? .......Ah, yes, I see.
> 
> It could be said then that one definition that can no longer be used of someone that has been executed is....repeat offender.


 


At last, one of them has understood


----------



## TimoS (Jan 1, 2007)

jdinca said:


> I agree with Michael that it is not appropriate to compare Saddam to Hitler. I think comparing him to Caucescu (sp?) would be much more appropriate. He and his wife were summarily excecuted by an angry mob without any type of trial at all.



Actually that's not entirely true. They were given a trial, of sorts. It was a kangaroo court. Here's a brief description http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolae_Ceauşescu#The_end_of_Ceau.C5.9Fescu

And of course, this has nothing to do with the topic


----------



## TimoS (Jan 1, 2007)

Don Roley said:


> After an anthrax attack and scores of searches in Iraq, we still do not know what he did with the stuff he admited he had at one point.



I'm a bit curious about that point. When and to who did Saddam admit that he had anthrax? Could it not have been a ploy to try to make himself safe from attack?


----------



## jdinca (Jan 1, 2007)

Shark said:


> Europeans are generally against the death penalty, that is a matter of choice.
> Suddam was a tyrant no doubt about it and murdered thousands but could hardly be compared to Hitler or especially Stalin.
> Was he such a threat to USA? Weapons of mass distruction??
> Iraq is a long way from America but unfortunately more and more American families have news of their sons and daughters deaths in Iraq.
> ...


 
Given how long it has historically taken most democracies to truly gain a foothold and thrive, I'm not willing to pass judgement on Iraq yet. We had many years of strife after establishing our democracy, and this has been repeated throughout history. There will always be those that want to be in control and not allow the people their voice. Don't forget that a great deal of the problems in Iraq are because of support for the insurgency by Iran and Syria, who do not want to see a western friendly democracy on their borders.

If Iraq is still like this 5-10 years from now, then I'd be willing to pass judgement but not now.


----------



## heretic888 (Jan 1, 2007)

I apologize for my previous comments. As in bydand's case, it was uncalled for and indicates I should really stop posting before I've had my corn flakes and orange juice. 

That being said, something said caught my eye....



Tulisan said:


> Everyone else can see that the facts are much more simple then you propose; that being that I simply don't think that mass murderers and international terrorists should be left alive to potentially do more damage. And there are many who would agree...


 
Actually, the "facts" are not that simple. For you to support your position, you must actually demonstrate how persons such as Saddam Hussein can "potentially do more damage" behind the bars of a maximum security prison. There is nothing to support this other than idle speculation and what-if scenarios.

Let's get concrete here. People can jubilate such bloodshed all they wish, but can _anyone_ demonstate how the world or even Iraq is in any way "safer", more "peaceful", more "secure", or even "better off" today than it was three days ago?? Has the execution of Saddam Hussein in any way improved the situation we now find ourselves in?? Has anything changed, is the insurgency now going to magically dissipate with his death??

I would argue that Hussein's execution is actually going to make things _worse_ in Iraq. This is going to send a message to the Sunni and it isn't going to be pleasant....

One is free to support state-sanctioned murder all one wishes, but let's not fall under the delusion that such policies are making the world or even Iraq "safer" compared to confinement from the rest of society.

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Jan 1, 2007)

jdinca said:


> Given how long it has historically taken most democracies to truly gain a foothold and thrive, I'm not willing to pass judgement on Iraq yet. We had many years of strife after establishing our democracy, and this has been repeated throughout history.


 
This is an inaccurate analogy, in my opinion.

Let's be honest here, folks. The Thirteen Colonies weren't on the verge of civil war some four years after the Constitution was ratified, nor was there wholesale violence and paramilitary insurgencies quite literally tearing the country apart.

Additionally, democracy wasn't forced on our ancestors. They came into it of their own free will. They chose democracy. It wasn't hoisted upon them at gunpoint.

I feel history will see Iraq as the New Vietnam.


----------



## jdinca (Jan 1, 2007)

TimoS said:


> Actually that's not entirely true. They were given a trial, of sorts. It was a kangaroo court. Here's a brief description http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolae_Ceauşescu#The_end_of_Ceau.C5.9Fescu
> 
> And of course, this has nothing to do with the topic


 
Thanks for the history refresher! I did note that the article had anything to say about international condemnation over what happened to him and his wife.

Taken in context with the discussion comparing Saddam to Hitler, or Stalin, I do feel that the comparison was on topic. I guess it all depends on one's point of view.


----------



## TimoS (Jan 1, 2007)

jdinca said:


> Thanks for the history refresher! I did note that the article had anything to say about international condemnation over what happened to him and his wife.



Now that you mention it, I can't remember any international condemnation of their execution either


----------



## jdinca (Jan 1, 2007)

heretic888 said:


> This is an inaccurate analogy, in my opinion.
> 
> Let's be honest here, folks. The Thirteen Colonies weren't on the verge of civil war some four years after the Constitution was ratified, nor was there wholesale violence and paramilitary insurgencies quite literally tearing the country apart.
> 
> ...


 
I wonder if we would have ever gained our freedom without outside assistance if the Brits had slaughtered entire towns in retribution for a local uprising? I wonder what Iraq would be like if Iran and Syria were not pumping money, weapons and fighters into Iraq? 

Again, I'm not willing to pass judgement yet, it's too soon. Either way, the elimination of Saddam is a good thing but we all have a right to our personal opinions. It will take time to see who was right and who was wrong. Even then, the spin from both sides will make that clear as mud. Undoubtebly there will be those who look back and consider Iraq to be the new Vietnam. That analogy was being thrown around by the left at the very beginning. There were also those that were against our involvement in WWII, the Balkans, and the first Gulf war just to name a few. There are those that feel Reagan's military buildup that led to the end of the Cold War and the breakup of the Soviet Union was also a mistake. History will be what you want it to be, based on which book you choose to read.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 1, 2007)

jdinca said:


> I wonder if we would have ever gained our freedom without outside assistance if the Brits had slaughtered entire towns in retribution for a local uprising? I wonder what Iraq would be like if Iran and Syria were not pumping money, weapons and fighters into Iraq?


 
Foreign fighters are reported to make up less than 5% of the fighters on the ground in Iraq. 

While there is evidence that weapons knowledge is being imported from Iran, were not a majority of the local population willing to take up arms against their neighbors and their occupiers, the knowledge and influence coming from Syria and Iran would be irrelevant. 

95% of the fighting in Iraq is taking place with Iraqis. 

Only the broken neoconservative logic is pushing the Iranian and Syrian influence, because they wish to expand the war to those states.


----------



## heretic888 (Jan 1, 2007)

jdinca said:


> I wonder if we would have ever gained our freedom without outside assistance if the Brits had slaughtered entire towns in retribution for a local uprising? I wonder what Iraq would be like if Iran and Syria were not pumping money, weapons and fighters into Iraq?


 
Which is precisely my point. Iraq is nothing like the colonial United States.



jdinca said:


> Either way, the elimination of Saddam is a good thing but we all have a right to our personal opinions.



No one has yet to demonstrate to me how the execution of Saddam Hussein is a "good thing", outside of the fact that it makes some people feel good for a short span of time. Iraq is not more stable or secure than it was four days ago. Saddam's execution seems to have no impact whatsoever on our situation.



jdinca said:


> History will be what you want it to be, based on which book you choose to read.



History is a construction, but it is a far cry from whatever "you want it to be". This is a relativistic non-sequiter. Good history is based on evidence. Bad history is based on myth and metanarrative.

Laterz.


----------



## mrhnau (Jan 1, 2007)

I spoke with my wife regarding the execution. She made a statement I'll agree with. She said "I don't feel sorry for Saddam the dictator/tyrant, but do feel sorry for Saddam the man".

While I agree punishment needed to be meted out, as an individual, I do feel sorry for his soul... He committed crimes that deserved the punishment he got, but its sad to see him unrepentant for what he did.

Now, about the stability in Iraq, time will tell. The next six months should be interesting...


----------



## bydand (Jan 1, 2007)

heretic888 said:


> ... it was uncalled for and indicates I should really stop posting before I've had my corn flakes and orange juice.



Well right there is your problem, Corn Flakes has too serious of a box first thing in the morning, cripes man you need to start with some Boo-Berry, or Count Chocula.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 1, 2007)

mrhnau said:


> Now, about the stability in Iraq, time will tell. The next six months should be interesting...


 
The 'six month' time period is known among leftists as a 'Friedman'. New York Times writer Tom Friedman has said, continually, since the fall of the statue, that the next 'six months' will be decisive in how Iraq turns out.

This essentially proves that the American populace has a memory-span of four months or less.


----------



## mrhnau (Jan 1, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> The 'six month' time period is known among leftists as a 'Freidman'. New York Times writer Tom Freidman has said, continually, since the fall of the statue, that the next 'six months' will be decisive in how Iraq turns out.
> 
> This essentially proves that the American populace has a memory-span of four months or less.



Actually, that was just a random number  I'm not suprised others have picked it up though.

As for a memory span of four months, I'm not suprised.


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 1, 2007)

I'll try to do this without personally attacking as well; I just had some cheerio's and coffee so I should be O.K. 

Here are the main points that I see regarding whether the consequences would be better having Saddam dead or alive:

Maximum security prison sounds good by western/european standards, but is inapplicable in a country like Iraq where he is being held. Iraq is in civil war right now, and the limited stability that is there is (very ironically) due to US occupation. There are still many people in Iraq who, if given the opportunity, would have put Saddam right back into power, despite the atrocities that he and his regime are responsible for. Leaving him in an Iraqi prison and alive only keeps the morale high for his supporters, and leaves risk for his escape or a climb back into a position of power. In a country with Iraq&#8217;s instability, especially if we leave the country, you can better believe that this could happen. Think of Napolean of France. His staged comeback wasn't a success, but imagine if Waterloo had turned out differently?
Killing Saddam also send the right message. You put him in prison or exile, it sends a message to "evil" dictators and would-be "evil" dictators that the consequences for atrocities may be tolerable. Leaving him alive gives hope to his supporters and other possible dictators, inviting them to take the throne and have the old Iraq all over again. On the other hand, knowing that it is likely that you will be publicly and humiliatingly put to death for your crimes sends the right message to those who would commit acts of international terrorism or atrocity. It also send the right message to Saddam sympathisors: the old Iraq under Saddam will never be again. Only when this is fully understood can the doors to a new and better Iraq be opened.
And again I will mention, this has to do with morale. You shut down a horrible dictator and end his life, it is likely to end his movement. If he lives, then the movement is more likely to survive. You aren&#8217;t just killing a man here; your killing what that man represents. Your sending a message to his sympathisers and the world; you are shutting down what that "man" represents.
The only proposed negative that I can see is that the some Sunni and Insurgent leaders warn that they are going to increase sectarian violence if Saddam is hanged. This may be true, however, it would be worse to leave him alive. Do you think that if Saddam was left alive, that the insurgence would turn in their weapons begin working on rebuilding the economy? Guess again. The thing is, if you respond to those threats and decide to not execute him, then your only giving positive reinforcement to terrorist threats, which is what a threat for more violence "if we don't get our way" is, in this case. Therefore, leaving Saddam alive would only encourage more sectarian violence from people who believe that violence will get them somewhere. These ideas need to be shut down all together. The best thing to do was to kill him, and let that be a big "F-U" to those who think that they can push people around with violence.
For there to be a "New and better" Iraq, the old movement needs to be shutdown. Killing Hussien is a step in that direction. Leaving him alive only leaves room for more of he same. I see this as an act of the current Iraqi government growing some nuts and trying to take charge of their own country.

So, perhaps someone can come up with one good reason as to why he should have been left alive? I am open to suggestions. Maybe I am just looking through a filtered lense, but I can't think of any good reason to have kept that man alive (at least, not anything that can't be logically destroyed).

:idunno:


----------



## Andrew Green (Jan 1, 2007)

jdinca said:


> I wonder if we would have ever gained our freedom without outside assistance if the Brits had slaughtered entire towns in retribution for a local uprising? I wonder what Iraq would be like if Iran and Syria were not pumping money, weapons and fighters into Iraq?



Genocide and slaughtering villages is not something that American history is void of either.  Nor is it something most developed countries are missing in there past.

And as far as funneling money goes, America is not "clean" on that either.  Remember they funded Sudam's regime durring the Iraq-Iran war.  Aided the Al-quida in the fight against the Soviets, and even put a lot of cash through Germany in the Inter-war years enabling it to get past the reperations owed to France and recover there economy.

Sadam was a bad guy, got what he deserved.  But not from the right source. 

Try to look at it from a Iraqi's POV, things where better before the war, not great, but better.  More civillians have died because of American actions then Sudam's.  Your countries economy has been destroyed, it's infastructured bombed out of existance.  You are occupied by a foriegn power that seems only interested in forcing there way of life on you and has no respect for yours, and your religion.

What do you do?

I bet most American's in a similar situation would also be fighting the occupying force.

Imagine if 100 years ago some other foriegn super power had invaded, toppled your government and executed your president for genocide against the Native Americans, spit on Christian values, and forced the American style of deocracy out.  What do you think the people then would have done?  Welcomed there liberators with open arms? Or resisted the occupation?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 1, 2007)

Death is a part of life. Most religions have rules concerning the taking of life. To violate them is often seen as a crime against the God who issued the rules.

That Saddam was not a good man is well known.
But was he so evil that he deserved to die?
Who really is more evil? The Hitler who said "kill all the jews", or the camp guard who enjoyed his work at the ovens and showers?

The crime Saddam was convicted of was well known. It happened over a decade ago. During the intervening time, he enjoyed good relations with the United States, prior to the first Gulf War.

If this crime had not occurred, another one would have sufficed to use as a reason to deal death. The sentence was known before the first charge was issued. The rest is a formality.

As a deposed head of state, he could have been allowed to go into exile, as other, even more vicious have done.
As a captured prisoner of war, he could have been held until hostilities ceased, like so many others are.

But he was murdered, to appease the cries of blood and vengeance, which go against so many of those things we hold in common good.

His death will not bring a single lost soul back. It will not return one stolen item, heal one broken heart, or shattered body.

It will just bring more death, while those who will gain the most and celebrate the most will self gratify over the image of an old man dancing on air. The poor peasant who will be caught in the cross fire of the fanatic and the free however has only more blood to bear witness to.

And somewhere, a mother cries, for she got a visit today with the news that her most cherished has fallen.


I pray that this cycle ends soon. I fear that it will end in fire.


----------



## heretic888 (Jan 1, 2007)

Tulisan said:


> [*]Maximum security prison sounds good by western/european standards, but is inapplicable in a country like Iraq where he is being held.



_Was_ being held, anyway.

This still seems like an unworkable argument to me. If I interpret you correctly, you are saying Saddam should have been killed because he might escape?? Well, simply move him somewhere he can't escape. Who said he _had_ to be held in Iraq?



Tulisan said:


> [*]Killing Saddam also send the right message.



Time will tell, but I suspect the Sunni minority will interpret this as a referendum against them. This will likely make them even more desperate than they currectly are.




Tulisan said:


> [*]And again I will mention, this has to do with morale. You shut down a horrible dictator and end his life, it is likely to end his movement.



Not if he becomes a martyr. 



Tulisan said:


> [*]The only proposed negative that I can see is that the some Sunni and Insurgent leaders warn that they are going to increase sectarian violence if Saddam is hanged. This may be true, however, it would be worse to leave him alive. Do you think that if Saddam was left alive, that the insurgence would turn in their weapons begin working on rebuilding the economy? Guess again. The thing is, if you respond to those threats and decide to not execute him, then your only giving positive reinforcement to terrorist threats, which is what a threat for more violence "if we don't get our way" is, in this case. Therefore, leaving Saddam alive would only encourage more sectarian violence from people who believe that violence will get them somewhere. These ideas need to be shut down all together. The best thing to do was to kill him, and let that be a big "F-U" to those who think that they can push people around with violence.[/LIST]For there to be a "New and better" Iraq, the old movement needs to be shutdown. Killing Hussien is a step in that direction. Leaving him alive only leaves room for more of he same. I see this as an act of the current Iraqi government growing some nuts and trying to take charge of their own country.[/SIZE]
> 
> If by "current Iraq government" you mean "militant Shia majority" and by "step in that direction" you mean "referendum against the Sunni minority that prospered under Hussein", then you are correct. I expect increased bloodshed and sectarian violence in the following months.
> 
> ...


----------



## heretic888 (Jan 1, 2007)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Death is a part of life. Most religions have rules concerning the taking of life. To violate them is often seen as a crime against the God who issued the rules.
> 
> That Saddam was not a good man is well known.
> But was he so evil that he deserved to die?
> ...


 
Wonderful post, Bob. I agree completely.


----------



## mrhnau (Jan 1, 2007)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Death is a part of life. Most religions have rules concerning the taking of life. To violate them is often seen as a crime against the God who issued the rules.


correct.


> That Saddam was not a good man is well known.
> But was he so evil that he deserved to die?
> Who really is more evil? The Hitler who said "kill all the jews", or the camp guard who enjoyed his work at the ovens and showers?


If Saddam did not deserve to die, then is there EVER a case for capital punishment? From the tone of your post, I'm assuming you are purely against them.


> If this crime had not occurred, another one would have sufficed to use as a reason to deal death. The sentence was known before the first charge was issued. The rest is a formality.


If guilt and evidence of that guilt is absolutely overwhelming, would you be content with a not guilty decision? Crime was committed. Evidence was overwhelming. Are you suprised at a guilty conviction? He would have been tried for other changes should he escape this one.



> As a deposed head of state, he could have been allowed to go into exile, as other, even more vicious have done.
> As a captured prisoner of war, he could have been held until hostilities ceased, like so many others are.


Could say the same about Nuremburg trials. If you are opposed to the death penalty, then this could be said about anyone and any crime.


> But he was murdered, to appease the cries of blood and vengeance, which go against so many of those things we hold in common good.


incorrect. Capital punishment is not murder. They also appeased the cries of justice and the cries of the families that have been slaughtered under the overseeing eye of Saddam. we also hold that common good.


> His death will not bring a single lost soul back. It will not return one stolen item, heal one broken heart, or shattered body.


Then if anyone is injured, murdered or property irrecovably damaged, we should let people out of prison or released from capital punishment? It won't bring back the property, it won't heal the individual or resurrect the slain. Why should we keep them in prison or execute anyone?

One thing this execution does is prevent recurrence. Hopefully the next dictator will think twice before killing thousands/millions.


> It will just bring more death, while those who will gain the most and celebrate the most will self gratify over the image of an old man dancing on air. The poor peasant who will be caught in the cross fire of the fanatic and the free however has only more blood to bear witness to.
> 
> And somewhere, a mother cries, for she got a visit today with the news that her most cherished has fallen.
> 
> I pray that this cycle ends soon. I fear that it will end in fire.


Gee, that sound poetic and nice. Sadly, appeal to emotion does not present a solution.

Somewhere, a mother cried when her son was slain in the beaches of Normandy. Somewhere, a mother cried when her son was slain at Gettysburg. Somewhere, a mother cried when her son got in a car wreck caused by a drunk driver. Somehwere, a mother cried when her husband got cancer.... Are you going to decry every single death? Every single war?

I agree though, I hope the cycle does end soon. however, I do NOT endorse that if it demands justice not be handed out. If we start allowing every dictator, murderer, rapist, thug, terrorist off the hook because we care about their crying mother, then we have some SERIOUS issues.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 1, 2007)

mrhnau said:


> If Saddam did not deserve to die, then is there EVER a case for capital punishment? From the tone of your post, I'm assuming you are purely against them.



Not in my opinion. 
Even if the offender had sexually molested kittens, gutted them, force fed their rotting carcasses to 12 street urchins, who were later dismembered while still alive, and sexually violated with a racy leg lamp.

For 1 simple reason: It will not heal anything.



> If guilt and evidence of that guilt is absolutely overwhelming, would you be content with a not guilty decision? Crime was committed. Evidence was overwhelming. Are you suprised at a guilty conviction? He would have been tried for other changes should he escape this one.



He was tried on this charge, because it was the one most people could grasp onto. For all the evils we've heard he did, this was the one the news would carry. Not the tortures, the imprisonments, the executions. This one.

If the head of state of a nation can be held liable for the actions of his underlings, then most US presidents also deserve to swing. Saddam is guilty over a few hundred civilian deaths. What is Bush guilty of, when there are thousands of Iraqi children dead because of his commands? 



> Could say the same about Nuremburg trials. If you are opposed to the death penalty, then this could be said about anyone and any crime.



If you are going to cheer for or support death penalties, then impose them equally across the board, under the same guidelines. To do otherwise is an injustice.



> incorrect. Capital punishment is not murder. They also appeased the cries of justice and the cries of the families that have been slaughtered under the overseeing eye of Saddam. we also hold that common good.
> 
> Then if anyone is injured, murdered or property irrecovably damaged, we should let people out of prison or released from capital punishment? It won't bring back the property, it won't heal the individual or resurrect the slain. Why should we keep them in prison or execute anyone?



I didn't say let them loose. I said that killing them will not bring the dead back, heal the injured or such.



> One thing this execution does is prevent recurrence. Hopefully the next dictator will think twice before killing thousands/millions.



Bull. If that was true then 1946-50 should have cured us good. But it didn't, because it doesn't. To think otherwise is wishful thinking.



> Gee, that sound poetic and nice. Sadly, appeal to emotion does not present a solution.
> 
> Somewhere, a mother cried when her son was slain in the beaches of Normandy. Somewhere, a mother cried when her son was slain at Gettysburg. Somewhere, a mother cried when her son got in a car wreck caused by a drunk driver. Somehwere, a mother cried when her husband got cancer.... Are you going to decry every single death? Every single war?



Every death, Every war, every act of senseless violence, diminishes us all.
So yes, I will.



> I agree though, I hope the cycle does end soon. however, I do NOT endorse that if it demands justice not be handed out. If we start allowing every dictator, murderer, rapist, thug, terrorist off the hook because we care about their crying mother, then we have some SERIOUS issues.



You are connecting a loathing for the death penalty with sympathy for criminals. They are not the same. I support punishing crime.
I simply do not support the false idea that death is a cure for evil.
It simply births more evil.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jan 1, 2007)

mrhnau said:


> One thing this execution does is prevent recurrence. Hopefully the next dictator will think twice before killing thousands/millions.



Governments have been killing thousands of innocent people  since...well... there where governments.  Sadam was far from the worst of them historically.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 1, 2007)

If the only reason to find Saddam deserving of death was the murder of several hundred civilians by individuals under his command, then do any of these individuals also deserve to have been executed:

US President under whose administration a portion of the US population is rounded up and imprisoned without charge, during which a number die.

US President under whose administration over 3,000 individuals are illegally detained, removed from the country, and held for years without charge or council, during which many are tortured and some died.

US President under whose administration tens of thousands of people are removed at gun point from their homes, force marched across the land, during which time thousands die, and whole families are executed by laughing soldiers.

Saddam may have been a bastard. He may have even deserved to die.
I still say that his, or any execution, is wrong.
Even when I may feel personally that it is right.


----------



## jdinca (Jan 1, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> Genocide and slaughtering villages is not something that American history is void of either. Nor is it something most developed countries are missing in there past.
> 
> And as far as funneling money goes, America is not "clean" on that either. Remember they funded Sudam's regime durring the Iraq-Iran war. Aided the Al-quida in the fight against the Soviets, and even put a lot of cash through Germany in the Inter-war years enabling it to get past the reperations owed to France and recover there economy.
> 
> ...


 
I can see your points quite well, and I can't really argue against them. I fully admit that our hands are less than clean throughout our history and we've made some very stupid decisions. I truly feel that there are occasions where we made the right choice, such as invading Iraq, but then have allowed our arrogance to guide our decisions in truly stupid directions. How we handled the aftermath of taking down Saddam was truly flawed by that. 

As for how we've treated other people at times in history, a joke I heard once had a jihadist talking to an Indian about how we have no will to fight. The Indian looks at him and says "just hope they don't decide to start playing Cowboys and Muslims." But I believe on the whole, America tries to walk on the right side of the path.

We've made mistakes, for sure but I do feel that the underlaying reasons for the decision were sound.


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 1, 2007)

heretic888 said:


> The problem is that all of your arguments, if we assume they are valid, are essentially utilitarian in nature. The reasoning is basically that we should kill a man because it will make things easier for us. Once again, I find this a bit too Machievellian for my tastes.
> 
> I am approaching this moreso from a moral and ethical perspective, not an utilitarian one.


 
Me too, though. I believe that leaders directly responsible for genocide or mass murder should not be allowed to live. That is how I feel morally about the issue; and as I said before in cases of international terrorism or mass murder/genocide where there is no question of guilt, I support the death penalty. I don't support the death penalty on a state level because of the room for error.

But I was just answering the question that you and others asked, which (to paraphrase) is basically, "How is Saddam's execution a good thing?"

From a utilitarian perspective, I believe it is. And it is important to note here that supporting Saddam's execution is not really taking sides against the Sunni's as a whole because not all of the Sunni's supported Saddam. But the sad reality that we all have to face is that there will be more bloodshed whether Saddam was executed or not.

So, it does come down to morality. I simply think that sometimes, people need to be killed. Many people don't agree with me on this, and I actually respect that opinion. I am fine when people state that opinion in an honest fashion. I get annoyed when people try to take a moral high ground in judgement of others who don't share that opinion, or when people try to downplay the severety of the atrocities committed by the person in question, or when people try to cloud the issue by irresponsibly equating others with the person in question (like equating Saddam with George Bush, for example), and so on. I am not pointing any fingers here, just stating some examples. But regardless, I think that it is intellectually and morally dishonest to do those things.

The fact of the matter is, there are very few people out there who don't believe that killing is O.K. under the right circumstance. There are very few true pacifists out there; a stance that could be argued to be immoral in and of itself. There are many people, for example, who would take a life to save a spouse or a child, or in self-defense. In fact, there are people who would say that they oppose putting Saddam to death because of a moral stance, who would support killing in a different, much less noble context. One never knows the skelatons people harbor in closets until one is staring right at them.

Yet, the intellectually and morally honest person can simply state their opinions without having too blubber around trying to attack and refute everyone who doesn't agree. Because really, how is responsible to pass judgements here regarding feelings of the death penalty? Particularly when it involves Saddam Hussein, or others like him? Most people support killing in one context or another. I am at least honest about when I think it is morally just, and when it isn't. Some other honest people may disagree with me, and that is fine. 

Yet, not everyone is that honest with themselves. And I think that people need to ask some hard questions of themselves before rushing to judge or refute someone else opinions in matters like these...


----------



## Don Roley (Jan 1, 2007)

Bob Hubbard said:


> As a deposed head of state, he could have been allowed to go into exile, as other, even more vicious have done.
> As a captured prisoner of war, he could have been held until hostilities ceased, like so many others are.



So you would let him walk free at some point????

Can you assure us that he would not have taken money hidden away and continued to kill Americans by terrorist acts?

If not, he is better off dead. The message his death sends might just give other creeps in power the chance to rethink what they do. If he had been allowed to live after all the death and pain he caused, then I think that would only encourage other despots.

Even if we had kept him alive in jail, he had a history of getting out of them and causing trouble later on. Now, he can't do that.


----------



## Don Roley (Jan 1, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> Only the broken neoconservative logic is pushing the Iranian and Syrian influence, because they wish to expand the war to those states.



You might want to read up on the news.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/na...30,0,3027654.story?coll=sfla-news-nationworld



> One of the commanders, identified by officials simply as Chizari, was the third-highest-ranking official of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards' al-Quds Brigade, the unit most active in aiding, arming and training groups outside Iran, including Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad, U.S. officials said. The other commander was described as equally significant to Iran's support of foreign militaries but not as high ranking.
> 
> American military forces nabbed the two men in raids last week. Their capture, U.S. officials said, represents the strongest evidence yet that Tehran is meddling in Iraq's affairs and strengthening its relationship with the government in Baghdad.
> 
> ...



They were released due to diplomatic immunity.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 1, 2007)

Don Roley said:


> So you would let him walk free at some point????
> 
> Can you assure us that he would not have taken money hidden away and continued to kill Americans by terrorist acts?
> 
> ...



Worse individuals were released after WWII.

I can no more assure you of that, than I can that any of us will still be alive tommorow, or that dinner will be at 5.

You mean other despots like Stalin, Amin, and such?

So build better jails. I hear theres one in the area of Cuba that works well for holding folks.


----------



## Andrew Green (Jan 1, 2007)

jdinca said:


> We've made mistakes, for sure but I do feel that the underlaying reasons for the decision were sound.



On that I would disagree with you.

What where the reasons?

Supporting terrorists?  Iraq was the most secular country in the region, and as a result did not get along with Al'Quida at all.  They where ideological enemies within there own region.

Weapons of Mass distruction?  Nope, nothing there...

I view morality as more a question of intent and reasons rather then the end result.  Suppose someone back in the 30's mugged and killed Hitler with no knowledge of who he was or what he would do, would that person have been a hero or a murderer?

They did everyone a favour (ignoring the fact that someone else probably would have filled Hitlers role), yet there intent was criminal.  Steal his money and kill him. I'd say they commited a immoral act.

Sudam being overthrown may have been a good thing (again ignoring some facts, namely that Iraq is in far worse shape now) but where the reasons for overthrowing him morally right?

Remeber that the actions he was convicted for where well known and happened before the US had a friendly relationship with him, and where not the reasons given for the invasion before it happened.

And if we look at "stupid mistakes" and number of civillian lives lost from them, the US has FAR out killed Sudam's regime.  Even in more recent years.  The US is the only country to have used Nuclear weapons on people, it's economic sanctions against various countries have killed millions, the cold war with the USSR chopped up the world leading to many proxy wars, Vietnam being probably the biggest.

Yet no one came and toppled the US governemt and executed its presidents.  Why are Sudam's mistakes unforgiveable?  What has he done in recent years to warrant being invaded?


----------



## exile (Jan 1, 2007)

heretic888 said:


> The problem is that all of your arguments, if we assume they are valid, are essentially utilitarian in nature...I am approaching this more so from a moral and ethical perspective, not an utilitarian one. I assume that taking the life of another human being is wrong ..Laterz.



Heretic, I'd like to follow this point up, because I think it might turn out to be very relevant to the argument here. You're making a categorical distinction between ethical and utilitarian kinds of arguments here. OK, let's see if that distinction is really supportable in the limit. There's a point that Tulisan raises which I'd like to see your response to:



			
				Tulisan said:
			
		

> The fact of the matter is, there are very few people out there who don't believe that killing is O.K. under the right circumstance. There are very few true pacifists out there; a stance that could be argued to be immoral in and of itself. There are many people, for example, who would take a life to save a spouse or a child, or in self-defense.



Lemme elaborate a scenario based on Paul's observation here which I think you need to answer to preserve the kind of distinction between `utilitarian' and `moral/ethical' you raise. Here it is: an individual breaks into a house and threatens the life of one of the children who lives there. The threat is credible, the means are at hand and the invader shows absolutely no signs of being swayed or open to negotiations or anything else. Agreed? One of the parents, under some pretext or other, passes next to a knife block that the invader is clearly unable to see, removes a 9" filleting knife and, concealing it, get close enough to the invader to slam the knife through the assailant's carotid artery to the hilt, with every intention of killing him (something virtually guaranteed by such a strike). 

Now, was the parent _wrong_ to do that?

You're saying that the taking of a life is inherently wrong. Therefore the parent was wrong to do it. Not acting would have led almost certainly to the death of the child; thus inaction would also yield a death, the death of one of the parents' children. So in that context, _was that killing wrong,_, on balance?

I'm going to assume you would agree that the parent was not wrong to do what s/he did, under the circumstancesnot because I assume that that's what you actually believe, but because if you do think the parent was wrong, I foresee a very _long_ justification being necessary! Let's just look at the simpler case, where we agree the parent acted rightly.

If the parent was justified in doing what s/he did, how then does that make the execution of Saddam inherently `wrong', simply because a life was taken there too? It seems to me that the only line of reasoning here is, `well, look at the difference in the two situations'. And as soon as you get to that kind of reasoning, you've got a utilitarian, _not_ a moral/ethical argument going. If the parent was justified in killing the attacker, the justification can only be because of the desirability of the ends served by the killing. And now you're not arguing about a qualitative difference, but a quantitative difference: the net good of the parent killing the attacker is great enough that it outweighs the net wrongness of the killing, whereas the net good of executing Saddam Hussein, or Amon Goth (the commandant of Auschwitz), or... ...does not outweigh the wrongness of the killing. You are saying, in fact, that there _can_ be a good outcome from killing another human being which outweighs the intrinsic badness of killing another human being, only we don't have that good an outcome in the case of Saddam and Co.and now, in effect, as the punchline to the old joke has it, we're just arguing about the _price_.

Have I gone astray here in some reasoning step? Very possibly, and I'd be interested to have it pointed out to me, since the issue is one which is I think at the core of this question about whether Saddam should have been executed.... and actually has a more general kind of interest beyond the specific case of any given act of killing.


----------



## Don Roley (Jan 1, 2007)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Worse individuals were released after WWII.
> 
> I can no more assure you of that, than I can that any of us will still be alive tommorow, or that dinner will be at 5.
> 
> ...



Two wrongs make a right?

Actually, you can be pretty sure that Hussein would try something if he was let free. He had a history of such things.

You miss the point. I am talking about guys that _are still alive_ and might get the message. Not those that died of old age in ease and wealth.

Gitmo might have been a good place for Hussein to rot the rest of his life away. But letting him free to go into exile, etc, would not be a very good message to the Mugabes of the world.


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 1, 2007)

What blows my mind is that some people seem to find it reasonable to equate American Presidents with Saddam Hussein, and other genocidal maniac's. That is about as morally responsible as me equating Dalton McGuinty of Ontario with Stalin because of his support of socialist policies. The comparison is niether fair nor fitting.

Look, I'm no Bush sympathizer, but if you can't realistically seperate his policies of which you may disagree with atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein then I am afraid that your beyond the reaches of having a logical discussion. If you can seperate the two, but are just refusing to do so to make a point, then your not being responsible or fair in this discussion.

Either way, we can conclude that when such generalizations are thrown around, that the discussion has officially gone into the gutter.

So I think that is my cue to walk away from this one. For better or for worse, I have stated my opinions, and I think I am done. The rest of you can hash this thing out.

Have fun...


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 1, 2007)

No, but 2 wrights make an airplane. 

Someone answer these:
Has the execution of any leader ever served as a deterent against abuses by others?  Please, I want to see proof...maybe an interview or something to back this idea up.  All these evil people, caught and executed...had 1 thought in mind. "Not Me! I've got these goons, this army, these fanatic supporters, to keep what happened to X from happening to me.". 

Now that Saddam is dead, has the violence slowed, the dead risen, looted property been returned, the country more stable, Americans stopped dying etc?

In regards to the question of self defense situations and lethal force, that is completely different. But, I'll answer.  The use of lethal force in some situations is justified, even though killing is still wrong.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 1, 2007)

Tulisan said:


> What blows my mind is that some people seem to find it reasonable to equate American Presidents with Saddam Hussein, and other genocidal maniac's. That is about as morally responsible as me equating Dalton McGuinty of Ontario with Stalin because of his support of socialist policies. The comparison is niether fair nor fitting.
> 
> Look, I'm no Bush sympathizer, but if you can't realistically seperate his policies of which you may disagree with atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein then I am afraid that your beyond the reaches of having a logical discussion. If you can seperate the two, but are just refusing to do so to make a point, then your not being responsible or fair in this discussion.
> 
> ...


Paul,
  An American President oversaw the Trail of Tears, Wounded Knee, and the destruction of tens of thousands of Native lives and families and cultures, genocide if you will.
  An American President oversaw the non-criminal imprisionment of thousands of US citizens due to their ethnic background.
  An American President led this nation into an illegal war on false pretenses and disinformation, has overseen the imprisonment without charge of several thousand individuals, numerous of whom have been unlawfully tortured in secret prisons around the world.

So, yes I do see reasonable comparisons to another now dead madman who maintained secret prisons, secret police and other crimes. The difference is, one of these lunatics is now dead, and being laughed at as he dies on a deplorable video clip. The other pardoned himself last fall.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 1, 2007)

This is slightly off topic, But I am trying to gain an understanding to a mindset...

Bob, If you knew _the only way_ to stop me from coming and killing you or your family was to take a hit out on me,

Would you have me killed?  Or would you allow me to kill your family and yourself?

I'm not equating this to Killing Sadam after the fact, and using it as "revenge" or "justice"... Im just asking it in the context of my question.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 1, 2007)

Cryozombie said:


> This is slightly off topic, But I am trying to gain an understanding to a mindset...
> 
> Bob, If you knew _the only way_ to stop me from coming and killing you or your family was to take a hit out on me,
> 
> ...


In the situation given, I would have to kill you.
It's still wrong. But it is self defense.
If you killed my family, and I ran into you 10 years later, it would not be self defense. It would be revenge. It would be murder.
And still wrong.
It would not correct the earlier murder of my family, nor make me "feel all better".


----------



## Don Roley (Jan 1, 2007)

Bob Hubbard said:


> No, but 2 wrights make an airplane.
> 
> Someone answer these:
> Has the execution of any leader ever served as a deterent against abuses by others?  Please, I want to see proof...maybe an interview or something to back this idea up.



I think the problem with that idea is that you would not get any of these guys to answer such an interview honestly. How many of them would admit they were too scared to do anything after all they have done to build up their image?

Also, how many times have we really been able to cause them to fear? Pol Pot, Pinoche, Stalin, etc all died of old age. Recently there has been a move to hold dictators accountable for their actions with the move to try Pinchet and such. It has not had much success so far, but I for one would like to see the move continued instead of throwing up our hands and giving up.

It boggles my mind that we can take someone who killed someone else and send him to prison for the rest of his life. But if you were responsible for the deaths of thousands of people, you spend your days in some fancy villa for the rest of your days like Idi Amin did.

And I have to echo Tulisan's comments. Hussein had someone try to kill him. So he killed the people of that guy's village. Some 2 year old girl (among others) died in fear and pain and Hussein could have stopped it. Hussein desired and arranged it. That child did not die as part of a bomb strike that she got caught in. She was not collateral damage that we try to avoid whenever we can. Hussein knew and targetted her for something she had no part in and for which she could easily have been let free on. Just a simple order, or a lack of an order on Hussein's part and she would be alive today. Instead, she died crying in fear and pain.

Is it petty to desire the death of someone that is that evil? Maybe- but it works for me. And unless we take every person from Hussein's village and kill them I fail to see how we can be accused of being as bad as he.


----------



## jdinca (Jan 1, 2007)

Andrew Green said:


> On that I would disagree with you.
> 
> What where the reasons?
> 
> ...


 
Supporting terrorists: No, he didn't get along with Al Qaida, even though Ansar al Islam had a terrorist camp in his country. Not to mention his payments to the families of Palestinian homocide bombers. I would call that support of terrorism. Oh, and Zarqawi was in Baghdad for medical treatment. Do you honestly think a person of that notoriety would be in Baghdad without Saddam's tacit approval?

Weapons of Mass Destruction: Our intelligence sucked, Britain's sucked, so did France, Germany's, Russia's, take your pick. Israel was spot on, telling us that the weapons weren't there and what had been there had been moved to Syria some time earlier. Unfortunately, we'll never be able to verify that last one. Everyone agreed that he had the weapons, he was that good at pulling off the sham. Had he not played the shell game with the UN, he could very well still be in power. What was well documented was that he had the facilities in place to pick up where he left off as soon as the sanctions were lifted. 

BTW, thumbing his nose at 14 UN resolutions seems to be consistently ignored in this debate. 

I do think trying to tie Iraq to 9/11 was the wrong thing to do.

I agree with your Hitler analogy. That would have been an immoral act. I don't think that overthrowing Saddam was though. I just wish that when he was a teenage assassin in Tikrit, that one of his jobs had gone wrong and he had been on the wrong end of the knife instead of his intended victim.

I'm not saying it was right, or wrong, but it's been estimated that dropping the bombs on Japan saved up to 2 million lives, even though it cost a couple of hundred thousand. Would we have been morally better off if we had not done that and allowed 10 times that many to die? 

I'm a little amazed that you seem to be saying that we started the cold war. I'm not even sure how to respond to that one.

As for sanctions, was it the sanctions, or was it what the leaders of those countries did with the aid they did get that caused the people to suffer? Do we need to replay the Oil for Food Scandal to support that one? How about Kim Jong Il? Take your pick of despotic leaders and what they did with the humanitarian aid that there countries were given despite the sanctions.

Yes, we've made mistakes but we've also done a great deal of good in the world to balance it out. There is no larger donor of humanitarian aid in the world. There is no one else that responds to large scale disasters with more resources than we do. Saddam sent money to the families of dead terrorists.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 1, 2007)

Don Roley said:


> I think the problem with that idea is that you would not get any of these guys to answer such an interview honestly. How many of them would admit they were too scared to do anything after all they have done to build up their image?
> 
> Also, how many times have we really been able to cause them to fear? Pol Pot, Pinoche, Stalin, etc all died of old age. Recently there has been a move to hold dictators accountable for their actions with the move to try Pinchet and such. It has not had much success so far, but I for one would like to see the move continued instead of throwing up our hands and giving up.
> 
> ...


And some might say that it's petty to start a war on false intelligence while ignoring ones true enemies all because someone insulted or tried to kill your daddy. Or to take joy at anothers suffering, or death, while claiming to hold dear the tenants of one of the worlds major religions.

Let me put this another way.
Anyone have a problem with turning George and Dick over to the same court for war crimes trials?  After all, it was a fair and just trial.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 1, 2007)

jdinca said:


> Yes, we've made mistakes but we've also done a great deal of good in the world to balance it out. There is no larger donor of humanitarian aid in the world. There is no one else that responds to large scale disasters with more resources than we do. Saddam sent money to the families of dead terrorists.



One persons terrorists are another persons freedom fighters.  Remember, who gets to define it is usually whoever won.  There are many nations in the world that looks at the US as a terrorist nation. That is despite the humanitarian heart at the core of this nation.


----------



## Don Roley (Jan 1, 2007)

Bob Hubbard said:


> And some might say that it's petty to start a war on false intelligence while ignoring ones true enemies all because someone insulted or tried to kill your daddy.



That is not the case. And it is off topic. This thread is not titled, "lets bash Bush yet again." How about we discuss Hussein and his death?


----------



## Don Roley (Jan 1, 2007)

Bob Hubbard said:


> One persons terrorists are another persons freedom fighters.



And some child molesters are considered advocates for freedom by certain people.

Just because someone chooses to not see the obvious, does not mean that we can't make the right choice.

Terrorists are people that see a bus full of kids and think of them as a target. Militants are people that will not knowingly shoot at the bus, but will take shots at soldiers.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 1, 2007)

Its on topic, because if the US hadn't invaded Iraq, while ignoring Osama bin Laden, on flawed intelegence and because someone wanted to avenge "his daddy", then Saddam would not have been ousted from power and would not have gone through a show trial and disgraceful execution.

A coup may have toppled him. But that is a different beast.

But, rather than his death, lets look at what most likely would be if he had been allowed to live:
Without the US invasion, the most probable reality is one where Saddam and his even more evil sons were still alive, still in power and still thumbing their noses at the US.
3,200+ US and allied troops would still be alive, and 46,000 more still physically and mentally intact.
Over 100,000 Iraqi civilians would still be alive.
The infrastructure of Iraq would still be reasonably intact.
Crime in the nation would be low, not at all time highs.
Priceless historical relics would still be intact and in place.

So, tell me.  How has the show trial, and disgusting execution of Saddam changed things? Improved things?

Or has his death now made him a martyr around whom a new generation of terrorists will gather in a country in the midsts of the opening moves in a civil war?


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Jan 1, 2007)

Personally, I think his victim's had a right to his execution. Still, it does look bad having the U.S. do it - particularly given the fact that we waged aggressive war to do so. I think a Mussollini or Ceaucescu sort of end for Saddam would have been more fitting. That being said, the survivors of his victims deserved the justice that his execution, albeit in a minor way, meted out.


----------



## heretic888 (Jan 1, 2007)

exile said:


> You're saying that the taking of a life is inherently wrong.


 
I actually never said anything of the sort.

My position is that the avoidable killing of a defenseless human being --- regardless of who he or she is --- is immoral. That is a far cry from self-defense or the protection of one's loved ones. While I hesitate to say the parent's actions were "moral" in the situation you described, I would agree they are necessary.

Actually, I would point you to Bob's own posts on this thread. He put forward arguments and positions that are virtually in complete agreement with my own views.

Laterz.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 1, 2007)

Don Roley said:


> And some child molesters are considered advocates for freedom by certain people.



Well, I believe you and I are not numbered among those 'people'.



> Just because someone chooses to not see the obvious, does not mean that we can't make the right choice.



But who is to say it is really right? Hitler and his people thought their 'final solution' was the right choice. The Ohio National Guard in 1970 thought opening fire on collage kids was the right choice. Hell, George Custer thought leaving his Gattling Guns behind was the right choice. Obviously, these 3 separate 'right choices' are anything but. History will tell us in the end if any of this was truly "right"



> Terrorists are people that see a bus full of kids and think of them as a target. Militants are people that will not knowingly shoot at the bus, but will take shots at soldiers.



Terrorists are those who rule by terror. 
Wiki:
"
*Terrorism* is a term used to describe violence or other harmful acts committed (or threatened) against those considered innocents by groups or persons for political, nationalist, or religious goals. As a type of unconventional warfare, terrorism means to weaken or supplant existing political landscapes through capitulation, acquiescence, or radicalization, as opposed to subversion or direct military action.
 "Terrorist attacks" usually are characterized as "indiscriminate", the "targeting of civilians", or as executed "with disregard for human life". The term "terrorism" often is used to assert that the enemy's political violence is immoral, wanton, and unjustified. Per the most common definition of terrorism  typically used by states, academics, counter-terrorism experts, and civil, non-governmental organizations , "terrorists" are actors who do not belong to any recognized armed forces or who don't abide the laws of war, and who, therefore, are regarded as "rogue actors".
 Those labelled "terrorists" rarely identify themselves so and, instead, typically use terms referring to their ideological or ethnic struggle, such as: separatist, freedom fighter, liberator, revolutionary, vigilante, militant, paramilitary, guerrilla, rebel, jihadi or mujaheddin, or fedayeen, or any similar-meaning word in other languages.
 Terrorism has been used by a broad array of political organizations in furthering their objectives; both right-wing and left-wing political parties, nationalistic, and religious groups, revolutionaries and ruling governments.[1]
 Some persons and governments believe that the term "Terrorism", as defined in dictionaries, now has a negative connotation, under the theory that a person who attacks the civilian population is, instead, a militant, regardless of the status of the victims of terrorism."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 1, 2007)

Bob Hubbard said:


> In the situation given, I would have to kill you.
> It's still wrong. But it is self defense.
> If you killed my family, and I ran into you 10 years later, it would not be self defense. It would be revenge. It would be murder.
> And still wrong.
> It would not correct the earlier murder of my family, nor make me "feel all better".



Ok, I get you now.  You arent against killing when it needs to be done, but you are against it when it doesnt serve any real purpose.  Makes sense to me.


----------



## FearlessFreep (Jan 1, 2007)

A Sad Addition to the story



Boy hangs himself 'like Saddam'



> Boy hangs himself 'like Saddam'
> 01/01/2007 22:43  - (SA)
> 
> Multan - A young boy who tried to copy hanging scenes from the execution video of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein died in central Pakistan, said police on Monday.
> ...



more at the link


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 1, 2007)

Cryozombie said:


> Ok, I get you now.  You arent against killing when it needs to be done, but you are against it when it doesnt serve any real purpose.  Makes sense to me.


Exactly.


----------



## jdinca (Jan 1, 2007)

Bob Hubbard said:


> One persons terrorists are another persons freedom fighters. Remember, who gets to define it is usually whoever won. There are many nations in the world that looks at the US as a terrorist nation. That is despite the humanitarian heart at the core of this nation.


 
So you're saying it's perfectly okay from your point of view to call someone who walks into a crowded cafe, or an open market full of civilians and blows himself and as many of them as he possibly can to bits a freedom fighter? Seriously? Regardless of who gets to define it, I don't see how anyone with basic human decency could take that stance. Yeah, we kill civilians during military action but we go out of our way to minimize it, otherwise, we would have just carpet bombed Baghdad instead of using targeted munitions. A terrorist targets the innocent. Hardly what I would call a freedom fighter. I do understand your point, I just choose to disagree with it.

Those nations that consider us a terrorist nation sure seem to change their tune when a disaster hits and the US shows up on the scene, i.e. the earthquake in Pakistan. These nations take our help with one hand and want to kill us with the other. Who has the moral high ground here? And if we're such a bad country, why are there so many people that want to come here?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 1, 2007)

jdinca said:


> So you're saying it's perfectly okay from your point of view to call someone who walks into a crowded cafe, or an open market full of civilians and blows himself and as many of them as he possibly can to bits a freedom fighter? Seriously?



No. I didn't say that at all. Please reread what I did say.



> Regardless of who gets to define it, I don't see how anyone with basic human decency could take that stance.



Me either. But those who engage in such actions care little for things like human decency. 



> Yeah, we kill civilians during military action but we go out of our way to minimize it, otherwise, we would have just carpet bombed Baghdad instead of using targeted munitions. A terrorist targets the innocent. Hardly what I would call a freedom fighter.



The term is all semantics. They are the same, it just depends on which side you're on.

It was expressed once in a britcom:


> Darling: So you see, Blackadder, Field Marshal Haig is most anxious to
> eliminate all these German spies.
> 
> Melchett: Filthy Hun weasels fighting their dirty underhand war!
> ...





> I do understand your point, I just choose to disagree with it.



I'm sorry, but I don't think you did understand my point, as expressed by you.  What you seem to have heard from me was not what I intended to say. Your end conclusion however I do agree with, that being the point expressed was off.



> Those nations that consider us a terrorist nation sure seem to change their tune when a disaster hits and the US shows up on the scene, i.e. the earthquake in Pakistan. These nations take our help with one hand and want to kill us with the other. Who has the moral high ground here? And if we're such a bad country, why are there so many people that want to come here?



During numerous conflicts, short periods of peace have broken out, so that both sides can collect their dead and wounded. Troops on both sides would render aid to their enemy, often showing great acts of kindness to men that a little while ago they had been trying to kill.  Sadly, eventually hostilities resume and the killing continues. Politics is the same.  City is flattened, aid comes in, hearts pour out, then eventually politics resumes and the hatred returns.

&#8220;Savage peoples are ruled by passion, *civilized* peoples by the mind. The difference lies not in the respective natures of savagery and civilization, but in their attendant circumstances, institutions, and so forth. The difference, therefore, does not operate in every sense, but it does in most of them. Even the most *civilized* peoples, in short, can be fired with passionate hatred for each other.&#8221;
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 Karl von Clausewitz

Put another way, man will not be truly civilized until the day that he can proclaim "I will not kill", and hold himself to it. As a race, not just an individual.

How does this relate to Saddam?

&#8220;No *civilized* society can thrive upon victims, whose humanity has been permanently mutilated.&#8221;
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 Rabindranath Tagore

Saddam was killed to appease his victims. But his death will not appease them for long. Nor return them to life, nor their property or health. All it will do is create armed uprisings seeking to extend the violence, revenge him, and continue the cycle of violence that started before his birth.


http://thinkexist.com/quotes/rabindranath_tagore/


----------



## Hand Sword (Jan 1, 2007)

With respect ot everyones opinions, the deed has been done, he has been burried. Our troops are still there, and maybe more on the way, Bottom line....What are we to do now? (seriously)


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 1, 2007)

Prepare for the coming rise in hostilities, the 'fanatic' supporters and the revenge seekers, and seek to minimize our casualties as we ride out this wave, as the current commander in chief will consider no options other than to continue doing what has already been done.


----------



## Don Roley (Jan 2, 2007)

Bob Hubbard said:


> But, rather than his death, lets look at what most likely would be if he had been allowed to live:
> Without the US invasion, the most probable reality is one where Saddam and his even more evil sons were still alive, still in power and still thumbing their noses at the US.



Well, we can be pretty sure that three members of the UN security council would have dropped all sanctions against him and set him back up in business. They would have done so because they would have profited from it. In fact, the sanctions were already full of holes and many people were dirty with his money.

At that point, can anyone name me something that he could not do that Osama Bin Laden could? Can anyone name me something that Hussein did not have that Osama did? Do you think that Osama is a threat? If Osama offered to stop attacking us, should we take his word?

As I see it, Hussein had more money and the resources of a nation at his disposal.  Lets not forget he had powerful members of the security council running cover for him. He also showed a history of running bio- weapon programs involving things like smallpox. The second program he ran right under the noses of the UN inspectors and was only found out when his son- in- law defected.

We can't say with certainty what he would have done. Maybe he would not have noticed that whoever attacked the US with anthrax caused a lot of problems and got away without anyone knowing who did it. Despite the fact that he thought he could take on the US twice toe to toe, tried to kill a president and ran bio- weapon programs he would not have tried to do so himself. And even if he did, maybe we would have caught him despite our failure to catch the anthrax attacks and the 9-11 attacks. Maybe he would not have been able to move around smallpox in diplomatic bags and pay off people to spread something like that in America. But we also don't know if Osama would fail to keep his word if he promised not to attack us anymore. If you think Osama is a threat and should be pursued even with his lack of resources and such compared to Hussein, I do not see how you can think that Hussein was not.

But now we know Hussein is not a threat. Because he is worm  food.



			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Put another way, man will not be truly civilized until the day that he can proclaim "I will not kill", and hold himself to it. As a race, not just an individual.



I see that you have taken as an absolute that there shall be no killings, unless in self defense, etc. Why? What is so bad about killing.

I am not joking around. I am asking you to exam your beliefs and see if they are all built on solid ground.

I have heard it said that we should not _lower_ ourselves to the level of a murderer by killing him. Well, since holding someone against their will is a bad thing, does that mean we should not lower ourselves to the level of a kidnapper by throwing them in jail? Why is holding someone against their will a good thing if they did it but killing a person is bad if they did it?

My view of things is that no one should do something to another that they would not want done to themselves. And if they choose to do so, then their rights are then void on that matter. So I have no right to go in and take something by force from another. But if someone does that, the police have the right to make them (i.e. by force) give it back without them _lowering_ themselves to the same level.

Note that I am not even making a moral judgement on the acts. I am merely saying that if you want to exist with others, you have to deal with them as you would want to be treated in turn. If you do not, then no one else is obligated to respect the rights you ignore in others. 

Hussein ordered a entire village killed, including the two year old I mentioned, because someone from it mad him mad. So I do not see the problem with an Iraqi judge giving the same type of order to have him hanged.


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 2, 2007)

Bob Hubbard said:


> Paul,
> An American President oversaw the Trail of Tears, Wounded Knee, and the destruction of tens of thousands of Native lives and families and cultures, genocide if you will.
> An American President oversaw the non-criminal imprisionment of thousands of US citizens due to their ethnic background.
> An American President led this nation into an illegal war on false pretenses and disinformation, has overseen the imprisonment without charge of several thousand individuals, numerous of whom have been unlawfully tortured in secret prisons around the world.
> ...


 
O.K&#8230;.I&#8217;ll entertain this due to special requests, and then I am probably done. I&#8217;m sure this will be futile, as this discussion is already in the *******.
So why don&#8217;t we simply ask ourselves a few questions:

Name one U.S. president who started a career by murdering political opponents to help his rise to power.
Name one U.S. president who created a police state driven by sham trials, executions, assassinations, and intimidation.
Name one U.S. president who would murder any who would oppose or challenge his rule, as well as sentencing their families and children to torture and death.
Name one U.S. president who would bomb his own citizens of a particular ethnic group with chemical agents, killing over 5,000 of them, and severely disabling 10,000 of them.
Name one U.S. president who would have actual rooms designated to rape and torture 1,000&#8217;s of women and children during his reign of power.
Name one U.S. president who would knowingly allow the military to use it&#8217;s own citizens as a shield during a war.
Well, I know we can name one individual responsible for ALL of the above, can&#8217;t we?

Yes, we all understand that American&#8217;s have been responsible for atrocities as well; and perhaps we have had presidents in the past who should have been held accountable for certain things. But, it is sad to say that most of the things that American history has been guilty of can&#8217;t be blamed on any one person, but was more of a cultural and collective problem (like Slavery, for example) that fits in a particular historical context. There is no president that has ever come close to the same level of wickedness or individual blame as Saddam.

But, you see, you all know all of this. I don&#8217;t have to explain it to most of you, which is why I say that this discussion has gone into the toilet. Because you either are incredibly stupid or ignorant of history, or you know that Saddam and (insert favorite U.S. president to hate here) aren&#8217;t even in the same category.

And since you know this, then that means that you are equating the two to prove a point. Most likely, you are trying to level the playing field, blurring the lines and degrees in which individuals have been responsible for social ills so that we can say that NO ONE is guilty enough or bad enough to receive the death penalty. As if, say for example, Presidents Bush&#8217;s decision to invade Iraq is the same as having family members of political opponents raped, tortured, and killed, or using chemical weapons on his own people. You see? Because somehow if we put all social ills and crimes at the same level, then somehow that will justify our position as to why we think that Saddam Hussein should be alive right now.

Well, I think that is crap. No, I don&#8217;t think you all are really that stupid. I just think that you are being intellectually dishonest, and should be ashamed of yourselves.

But that&#8217;s O.K. if you&#8217;re not; I&#8217;ll just be ashamed for you, I guess.

But don&#8217;t let that stand in the way. 

Carry on.


----------



## Hand Sword (Jan 2, 2007)

:mrtoilet:  Since we are in the toilett, Someone wanna pull the chain please?

That way we can get back to heated, but, serious discussion, such as, coming up with real policy/ies concerning what to do now. If we disagree with the commander in chief's policy, then we must have a specific counter to it, right? It's not enough to scream about not liking W, and hating his policies, if you're in a real discussion.


----------



## Lisa (Jan 2, 2007)

*ATTENTION ALL MEMBERS:

PLEASE KEEP THE CONVERSATION POLITE AND RESPECTFUL.  PLEASE FEEL FREE TO USE THE IGNORE FEATURE TO IGNORE THOSE MEMBERS WHOSE POSTS YOU DISAGREE WITH, IT CAN BE FOUND AT THE BOTTOM OF THEIR PROFILE.

THANK YOU.

Lisa Deneka
MartialTalk Super Moderator*


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 2, 2007)

Tulisan said:


> O.K&#8230;.I&#8217;ll entertain this due to special requests, and then I am probably done. I&#8217;m sure this will be futile, as this discussion is already in the ****ter.
> So why don&#8217;t we simply ask ourselves a few questions:
> Name one U.S. president who started a career by murdering political opponents to help his rise to power.
> Name one U.S. president who created a police state driven by sham trials, executions, assassinations, and intimidation.
> ...



I have to say when people attempt to flex their argumentative muscles (example above) I become amused at catch-phrases such as "intellectual dishonesty" because one is compelled to ask oneself 'what does this really mean?'

One can only assume that a user of this phrase believes the recipient to be smarter than being revealed or, perhaps, to use only select pieces of his/her intelligence to argue a false point towards an alternative agenda.

So I challenge you then, Paul, when you use this term towards another user here and when speaking of the herald office of the presidency of the United States to consider men like Lyndon B. Johnson (who is more than suspected of arranging the assassination of his predecessor as well as putting us in Vietnam), Richard M. Nixon.

Here are the questions you asked:





> Name one U.S. president who started a career by murdering political opponents to help his rise to power.



George Washington ... but that was okay, because it bought our freedom.



> Name one U.S. president who created a police state driven by sham trials, executions, assassinations, and intimidation.



Arguably George H. W. Bush



> Name one U.S. president who would murder any who would oppose or challenge his rule, as well as sentencing their families and children to torture and death.



see above



> Name one U.S. president who would bomb his own citizens of a particular ethnic group with chemical agents, killing over 5,000 of them, and severely disabling 10,000 of them.



Any and all US presidents who have opposed environmental policy, allowing the continuous dumping of toxic waste in fields, rivers and streams near or flowing towards a drinking water or food farming source, developers to build on property previously dumped on in the interest of commerce,  and allows experimental vaccines to be injected into the men and women giving their lives to protect us - our armed forces.



> Name one U.S. president who would have actual rooms designated to rape and torture 1,000&#8217;s of women and children during his reign of power.



Every president who has ever presided during war time.



> Name one U.S. president who would knowingly allow the military to use it&#8217;s own citizens as a shield during a war.



See above.

So when you speak of intellectual dishonesty, I have to ask you ... where are your sources of information? Do you rely only on US broadcasts and major media?  Are you aware that the US political news going to Australia is FAR FAR different from what you will EVER see from a major media source in the states?  Talk to a newsperson from a major media source who does the US news to other countries and ask them how different the outgoing information is and then talk to me about intellectual dishonesty or liberal media.  Get a paper from Singapore translated to English for you - especially the articles on US politics - and talk to me about intellectual dishonesty and free press.  Go and visit *ANY* First Nations reserve property (even the ones with the casinos) and tell me our presidents don't carry on a torturous, murderous tradition in how we treat non-whites who were here before us and talk to me about intellectual dishonesty.

It's not the discussion that's in the toilet, my friend.  That commode is perpetually backed up with apathy, a blind faith in the people who run this country, and MISPLACED PATRIOTISM.

Oh, and let me define that for you:

Misplaced patriotism is rallying behind the Chief just because he holds that title.  It is believing so blindly in your nation to be INTELLECTUALLY DISHONEST enough to say there is little wrong with it, that the men who have run this nation into the ground are doing it far more good than we can even imagine.

Four more years ... oo-rah _this_.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 2, 2007)

Since the United States is now in the business of nation building and taking out "really bad mans" (quote GW Bush), who is next?

Will we now move on toward Syria where the mythical WMD are rumored to have gone, since destroying those was our supposed purpose for this pointless war?

Will we turn our attention to North Korea, where poverty is king and value of life is non existent? Thats another nation where the bastard at the top dines on fine wine while his people drink dirty water. They have nukes you see, far more dangerous than gas.

How about Iran, which continues to thumb it's nose at UN directives ordering it to cease its own nuclular (GW Bush) program. Remember, we invaded Iraq because Saddam was ignoring UN orders. Seems fair to do it again, especially since we have the army already there.  

What about going back to Somalia and taking out those warlords. People live in poverty, nations a gangland, and they even have pirates targeting cruise ships. 

The point is, there are easily a dozen nations out there with worse leaders than Saddam, who are in more serious need "nation building", who are more serious threats to the US, than Iraq under Saddam ever was.

With all the effort wasted on Iraq, Osama continues to oversee training camps and arm and outfit new terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan. His network, rather than be destroyed, has gone independent making for a harder not easier situation.

Regarding Pauls commentary, Saddam wasn't found guilty of anything other than ordering the killings. The rest of the accusations weren't run through this time, in fact he's still on trial for the Anfal military campaign against Iraqi Kurds in the late 1980s where at least 180,000 people were reportedly killed in the campaign.  There are also the numerous other more hideous things that Paul mentioned.

Don asked "I see that you have taken as an absolute that there shall be no killings, unless in self defense, etc. Why? What is so bad about killing."

Everything. You can not restore that which you take. Almost every religion in the world has a rule forbidding it. It is simply put, wrong.

That said, it is sometimes justified. In times of war people will die. It is still wrong though.

The argument "Well, he might have come back and done us harm" is true.
The same was said when SS troops executed 100+ US POWs in the Malmedy and Wereth massacres, or the US 3rd armies disposal of a large number of German officers who were "shot while escaping". There is a difference between taking out an enemy commander in battle, and executing him after the war is over. (Remember, it's over, "mission accomplished" - GW Bush)

What does Islamic law say?
http://www.islam-usa.com/e106.htm
And yes, this will refute some of my convictions, but it also outlines several areas where the Saddam situation was done wrong.

Saddams trial was riddled with issues, in defiance of current Iraqi law.
"The judge who did take over often allowed the prosecutor to bring forth evidence and witnesses without first showing them to defense lawyers, a brazen violation of fair play. "There was a lack of impartiality and judicial temperament" from the judge, said Michael Scharf, an American law professor who advised the Iraqi tribunal during the trial." - Star Bulletin

Based on how his execution went, it also violated their law, in that it was private, he was jeered, and he was not allowed to finish his final prayer.
"Once the capital punishment has been prescribed by the court, it should be carried out in a public ceremony. The purpose is to give a lesson to the witnesses present as a reminder and as a deterrent. There should be no public cheering or shouts of protest.

The emphasis in Islam is not on punishment itself but the reform of the criminal as well as a reminder to those who are witnesses to the punishment. We believe that after receiving the due punishment in this world, the murderer in the life hereafter will not be questioned about it, and will receive his due share of rewards for the good he might have done in this life. For this reason, before the administration of capital punishment, he is advised to perform the ritual prayer and pray to God for his forgiveness before he departs this world."

The bottom line is that I believe killing is wrong, period.
That in some cases it may be justified, but is still wrong.
That capital punishment does not work, nor heal, nor repair.
That Saddam, evil though he may have been, still should have been locked up for the rest of his life, not executed, but if he had been killed while on the run (like his sons) that would have been better.

As to what to do with them all.....all the "to be killed" criminals...
find an island...build a 20 foot wall around it. 
drop them in and let them rot. No phone, no car, not a single luxury. Airdrop in food and medicine, but otherwise, ignore them. Exile them from civilization with but the bare materials of life. Patrol the waters and air 24/7 and use their fortunes and money from every nation to fund the guards (who are not allowed to land except when dropping off the next SOB.

Let "God" sort them out.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I'm a person who trains in the killing arts, hoping that the day never comes where I have to use that knowledge. To me, the taking of life, any life, is wrong, but if it becomes a choice "him or me" then I will choose me. Just as there are things worth dying over, there are things worth killing for. Money, power, wealth, revenge, none of them are on my list. One can take this to extremes, the absurd yet fitting "you ate steak, that means you killed a cow, bad bad" that some go to. We each choose where that line is. For me, I've chosen. I will take no joy, no comfort, no happiness in death, regardless of the evil involved.

Saddam is dead. Few, including me will refute that he deserved death, for all he dealt. My argument is on the manner in which it was done.

There is also the argument that killing him was justice. I disagree.  He's dead. He's now beyond our justice.  Justice to me, would have had him spending the rest of his life, enjoying the facilities that he provided to so many others. 
Torture is wrong, revenge is wrong, killing is wrong. Sometimes though, justice is also wrong while being right.

His death has already produced more death. More is yet to come.


----------



## jdinca (Jan 2, 2007)

Bob Hubbard said:


> No. I didn't say that at all. Please reread what I did say.


 
You are correct. I was tired and grumpy. My apologies. :asian:


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 2, 2007)

No worries.


----------



## jdinca (Jan 2, 2007)

I am done with this thread, btw. The final page shows me that we've reached a level where basic core beliefs are in action and nothing anybody can say will change someone's point of view, or yield any new enlightenment. 

Until the next debate... :asian:


----------



## Andrew Green (Jan 2, 2007)

Bob Hubbard said:


> With all the effort wasted on Iraq, Osama continues to oversee training camps and arm and outfit new terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan. His network, rather than be destroyed, has gone independent making for a harder not easier situation.



I saw something that basically said the CIA had concluded that Bush did pretty much what Bin Laden had wanted.  The 9/11 attack was designed to force a reaction, or rather a over reaction that would offend many of the Muslims in the region and get them to join his fight.

If the US had stayed on course, and just taken out Bin Laden his organization would probably have fallen.  But by taking it outside of that Al'Quiada was able to grow a lot bigger and gain a lot more support.

They concluded that Bin Laden's 2004 tape was designed to boast Bush's chances in the election it was released a couple days before.  Largely because Bush at the wheel would rally his troops against the US.

Of course things have gone from tracking a terrorist group to fighitng resistance fighters, guerrila warfare,  trying to stabalize a civil war, etc.

If the criteria for warranting invasion becomes "thumbing there nose at the UN", well, I think the US is not really the one to claim to be the enforcer of that criteria.


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 2, 2007)

shesulsa said:


> One can only assume that a user of this phrase believes the recipient to be smarter than being revealed or, perhaps, to use only select pieces of his/her intelligence to argue a false point towards an alternative agenda.


 
Well, see, it is on this point where I really don't think I can continue with this thread. I don't want to be upset, or upset anyone over this. People like yourself, Bob, and others who I consider friends (some online friends, others I know personally) hold a position that I think is utterly wrong. I do think that your doing this either for the reasons you described above at best, at worst because that is what you really believe. I like you guys, but I just can't jive with it. I just have a hard time believing that people can't logically seperate, say, Lyndon B. Johnson from Saddam Hussein.

All of the "wrongs" committed (or allegedly committed) by presidents you mentioned are either not proven (like LBJ) or in a completely different socio-historical context (like George Washington during the revolutionary war and the establishment of a new nation) or not even to the same degree or severety (Bush's alledged "sham trials" for example). Can you name one account, for example, of an assassination or false execution authorized by George Bush? One that didn't already follow a process that "we the people" put into place? So, no, you can't mention Al Zarchowi (sp?) or other terrorists as he was killed during war time. So, no, you can't mention the Texas death penalty, as this is a process that voters and reps. in Texas established. And, do you really equate a bad environmental policy with intentionally using chemical weapons on your own citizens? 

I could keep going, but I am guessing that it is useless. The few things that I mentioned that Saddam is responsible for has been covered by about every major media source around the world; I have personally checked BBC, Asian news sources, European News sources, as well as U.S. news sources to find same or similar accounts regarding Saddam. There is no question that he is responsible for at least that much, and much more. If one questions that, then one can do research on ones own, right after the research on whether or not the Holocaust or 9-11 really happened is complete.

But, if one can't logically seperate someone like Saddam and someone like President Bush or LBJ, then it really leaves us no logical bases for discussion. So, in my opinion: yes, it is in the toilet.

One last thing:



> It's not the discussion that's in the toilet, my friend. That commode is perpetually backed up with apathy, a blind faith in the people who run this country, and MISPLACED PATRIOTISM.
> 
> Oh, and let me define that for you:
> 
> ...


 
I am sure this doesn't apply to me, because nothing I have ever said indicates a "misplaced patriotism." I am an independent voter, and I have never "blindly" supported anyone politically. I have always believed that people should be held accountable for their actions, and that includes any and all of our Presidents. I personally don't think that any of them have been "death penalty worthy," but they certianly should be held accountable. If it ever turned out that we had a president who was like a Hitler or Hussein, and was worthy of the death penalty, then I would support it even if it was a sad day in our history. 

But that isn't really the discussion, now is it? Yet, it does make me curious as to why a discussion regarding Saddam's execution turns into a discussion about our current administration, or about past presidents, or about american atrocities. That, and the inability to logically seperate these things out and put them in context makes me think that there are more personal issues going on here then what could warrent any productive conversation.

But again, I am not even sure that is happening. I think that this is mostly a case of people who don't support the death penalty even in extreme cases like this trying to justify the position. See, if we make many people look like they are on the same teir as Saddam Hussein, then we are left with the slippery slope where we either believe that almost every world leader should be executed or we don't support the death penalty at all. Well, I am sorry, but as I previously mentioned, I think that this strategic leveling of the playing field is not intellectually honest or responsible. Sorry to let the cat out of the bag. I think that one could make a good point regarding not supporting the death penalty without having to use this tactic.

But, that's just what I think.

Good luck to you all.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 2, 2007)

And you're welcome to think it. If we all thought alike, life would be boring my friend.

I do recognize the differences between the individuals. But I don't judge that 1 life is worth more or less than another, and I don't believe that a life for a life is right. Even though if in certain situations I would pull the trigger or swing the blade myself, ending anothers existence. I believe stealing is wrong too, but wouldn't hesitate to pocket a loaf of bread or a blanket if I or mine were starving or freezing.


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 2, 2007)

Bob Hubbard said:


> And you're welcome to think it. If we all thought alike, life would be boring my friend.
> 
> I do recognize the differences between the individuals. But I don't judge that 1 life is worth more or less than another, and I don't believe that a life for a life is right. Even though if in certain situations I would pull the trigger or swing the blade myself, ending anothers existence. I believe stealing is wrong too, but wouldn't hesitate to pocket a loaf of bread or a blanket if I or mine were starving or freezing.


 
See, now I see nothing wrong with that, even though my opinion differs slightly when it comes to certain people. I totally respect that opinion. In a sense, one who shares that opinion is probably a better person then I am. Well said!


----------



## Andrew Green (Jan 3, 2007)

Here's another take on it: http://richarddawkins.net/article,482,n,n

And one that I rather agree with.  Why kill someone that could provide a lot of insight into the mind of a dictator.  He should have been locked up and handed over to the psychologists and historians.  Figure out what happened, why, how he did it, and how to prevent it in the future.


----------



## TimoS (Jan 3, 2007)

I read an article in a finnish newspaper where it was said that during reign Saddam and his family probably stashed away millions (or was it billions) of dollars and now nobody knows where they are. The article said something that the investigators, mostly american I believe, now would like to talk Saddam's family members in Jordania about those monies. Somehow I don't think they'll be very co-operative


----------



## Andrew Green (Jan 3, 2007)

TimoS said:


> I read an article in a finnish newspaper where it was said that during reign Saddam and his family probably stashed away millions (or was it billions) of dollars and now nobody knows where they are. The article said something that the investigators, mostly american I believe, now would like to talk Saddam's family members in Jordania about those monies. Somehow I don't think they'll be very co-operative



Yeah... "Hi, we executed your Dad, now we think he might have stashed a lot of money somewhere, and we want it.  Can you help us out?"

Although the CIA did uncover this piece of evidence:
View attachment $treasure_map.jpg


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 3, 2007)

Security guard questioned in Hussein hanging video
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/01/03/saddam.execution/index.html

Excerpt:


> The man is being executed'
> 
> Early Saturday morning, Hussein was transported from his cell at Camp Cropper to the execution site, a building where Hussein's intelligence officers had also carried out hangings.
> 
> ...


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 3, 2007)

I will say that it is annoying to me that those morons had to turn it into a sectarian statement. It didn't have to be that way. It is almost like they are asking for more violence to occur in their country.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 3, 2007)

Tulisan said:


> I will say that it is annoying to me that those morons had to turn it into a sectarian statement. It didn't have to be that way. It is almost like they are asking for more violence to occur in their country.


 
I think that is exactly what they are asking for. The Shi'ite's who have been having this fued with the Sunni's for several centuries. Most recently, they had been oppressed by Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath party, which was predominantly Sunni. 

As the Shi'ite represent 60% of the population of the country formerly known as Iraq ... and the Sunni represent only 20% of the population of that state ... it would seem the Shi'ites will be very content with more violence. They are favored in the body counts.

I would further point out that those 'morons' were picked by the elected leaders of the country, by votes of more than 8 million Iraqis. I doubt they view themselves as 'morons'; patriots perhaps, freedom fighters, at the very least - bringers of justice.


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 3, 2007)

michaeledward said:


> I would further point out that those 'morons' were picked by the elected leaders of the country, by votes of more than 8 million Iraqis. I doubt they view themselves as 'morons'; patriots perhaps, freedom fighters, at the very least - bringers of justice.


 
Good points. To me, one thing a moron would do would be to intentionally perpetuate violence in his own country. Yet, we frequently vote in morons as well who probably don't see themselves as such. Some things are universal, I guess.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 4, 2007)

Tulisan said:


> Good points. To me, one thing a moron would do would be to intentionally perpetuate violence in *his own country*. Yet, we frequently vote in morons as well who probably don't see themselves as such. Some things are universal, I guess.


 
I think the tricky part of the equation, is that many or most of the people living in that geographic area do not self-identify as citizens of Iraq before they self-identify as a member of the Shi'ite or Sunni branches of Islam. If this supposition has any semblence of reality inside it, those actions we might interpret as 'moronic' might be seen internally as 'patriotic'.

In that case, perhaps, it is our 'point of view' that needs re-alignment. We need to see these people (morons?) as members of their religious sect before we see them as members of the State of Iraq. We can then base our attitudes and actions on a point of view closer to the reality on the ground. At least then, we might have a better shot at reaching our own goals. 

But, if we continue to force our point of view on them - that they must see themselves as "Iraqi's First" - we are going to a) have a complete misunderstanding of what goes on around us and b) receive a great deal of push back and resistance to that point of view.


----------

