Stop Saddam's Execution??

[Cruentus]

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]

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]

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




























.......RECIDIVISM.

 

[Ninjamom]

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

 

[dart68]

.......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]

...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]

.......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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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....

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

... 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]

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.