View Full Version : [en] Saddam sentenced to death
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15567363/?GT1=8717
Meh he won't pay for what he did by just hanging. I would have prefered if he had been sentenced to solitary confinement or something else. Make him suffer and pay for what he did!
He did terrible things...
though I am generaly against the death sentence I think if someone deserves it, it would be him. But still, it won't help the people who died from his hands..
But no, no suffer for him!
Is it a revenge of winners or justice? Justice should stay as cold and objective as possible.
Just, why the hack is the final sentence decided just very few days before US kongres votes? It makes one think that this final decision is under certain political preassure :sad:
and what will be the future of his country?
I seriously doubt that Iraq will survive more than several years after the western soldiers leave
The decicion is under political pressiure. Bush doesn't want to lose the majority in congress. Gas prices have droped in the past couple of months, Why?Big oil companies want Republicans to stay as they generally oppose to other forms of energy. Sure they will lose some profit but it will all be worth it after elections.
I hope democrats win the next elections. At least we will have a couple of years of growth and peace as that is what Democrats almost always do.
No suffering? Why not he should feel the pain he has caused to so many. Leave him to rot inside a prison all alone for what is left to his life. That' what he deservs. I generally don't wish for bad things to happen to other people, But people like Saddam deserv it. He should get sick or paralized and spend the rest of his life in a bed without been able to do anything, where no one will help him. Only then will he know how much suffering he has caused.
If you kill him what do you resolve with it? He dies suffers for a minuted or so and that's it. All his crimes will go unpunished.
This is the reasons why The Us has some of the crowdest prisons in Earth. Sure you are in jail, but if you look in the other way you will see a place where you will get food, clothes, television, and pretty much all the basic needs to live completly free. It is more like a summer camp that lasts several years than it is a jail.. I say make them work and earn their food and freedom.
The future of iraq will be complete civil war. All that the Us ever wanted there was the oil and a base from where to keep in check Iran, israel and pakistan.
The decicion is under political pressiure. Bush doesn't want to lose the majority in congress. Gas prices have droped in the past couple of months, Why?Big oil companies want Republicans to stay as they generally oppose to other forms of energy. Sure they will lose some profit but it will all be worth it after elections.
I hope democrats win the next elections. At least we will have a couple of years of growth and peace as that is what Democrats almost always do.The future of iraq will be complete civil war. All that the Us ever wanted there was the oil and a base from where to keep in check Iran, israel and pakistan.
No suffering? Why not he should feel the pain he has caused to so many. Leave him to rot inside a prison all alone for what is left to his life. That' what he deservs. I generally don't wish for bad things to happen to other people, But people like Saddam deserv it. He should get sick or paralized and spend the rest of his life in a bed without been able to do anything, where no one will help him. Only then will he know how much suffering he has caused.why not? just to prove you're not like him. just to prove that the winners respect humanity, unlike Saddam. Just not to use methods of those wh were sentenced. Or is it not enough? Justice is not here to make people suffer, it's here to prevent it.
Once you revenge on tyran in a same way he tyranized his people by mean, what makes you different? what gives you better right to make him suffer?
If you kill him what do you resolve with it? He dies suffers for a minuted or so and that's it. All his crimes will go unpunished.many people in Iraq will stop fighting in his name. they will stop killing houdreds of Iraqi civilians a day. IMO it's much better than make one guy suffer as much as he'd deserve
This is the reasons why The Us has some of the crowdest prisons in Earth. Sure you are in jail, but if you look in the other way you will see a place where you will get food, clothes, television, and pretty much all the basic needs to live completly free. It is more like a summer camp that lasts several years than it is a jail.. I say make them work and earn their food and freedom.we have the same problem. the pay all the luxury back.
why not? just to prove you're not like him. just to prove that the winners respect humanity, unlike Saddam. Just not to use methods of those wh were sentenced. Or is it not enough? Justice is not here to make people suffer, it's here to prevent it.
Once you revenge on tyran in a same way he tyranized his people by mean, what makes you different? what gives you better right to make him suffer?
many people in Iraq will stop fighting in his name. they will stop killing houdreds of Iraqi civilians a day. IMO it's much better than make one guy suffer as much as he'd deserve
we have the same problem. the pay all the luxury back.
I didn't say torture him. I didn't said slowly and painfully kill him like he he killed so many. I'm saying that He should not be killed, he should stay in a prison All alone with 0 contact with any human being of the outside world. Let him rot inside the prison, so he can think about what he did and at least see how wrong he was. That's the ultimate suffering a human can endure.
Justice was not created to make the judge a better person than the accused, justice was made to punish and through the punishment set an example to future want to be criminals preventing them from commiting the crime in the first place. If you are going to be a soft to a mass murderer, rapist, criminal,ect.. you will have your country overwhelmed with criminals.
And killing him WILL not stop the fighting!. They aren't fighting for Saddam, they are fighting for al qaeda.
On the side note, Democrats won the house and senate. Thu the entire election was about the war instead of new ideas, Bush won't have total control over the house and senate now:wink: .
furdude6
09-11-2006, 18:47
What about that idea of spliting Iraq into the three different zones of control depending on what type of muslim they where..:wink: thats totally stupid.. Either keep it as Iraq.. or completely dissolve the country and let the surrounding countries except Pakistan take the country evenly.. that way there'd be even more fighting and the middle east would never have peace..:lol: maybe, Bush doesn't need to be impeached I don't think.. After all he didn't do anything but listen to people that had bad ideas. Just all they gotta do is try and get the Iraq's goverment up and running better and military and then get out..:smile: ta da.. like what should have happened in every other civil war we took place in.. Korea, Vietnam.. The communists were running they're shows perfectly well... and the US had no right to interfer Communists if done with a better society would actually work properly if a correctly set up system was in place.. since it seemed that most of the communist coutries have huge landmasses it didn't seem to suit very well they need central base power.. and the fact that they also have very poor incomes(probably because of the communist way) make the people even more valnerable. Wow what a similarity.. I was about to write abou that the US shouldn't have had others sticking their noses in it.. but same thing.. slavery was a big no no.. and the no slavery supporters had a big impact for the north, plus the fact the north had a lot of the manufacting facilities.. Guns and such.. and the Blockade.. that did really slow the south down.. but I don't think Communism would be much a threat.. although slavery wasn't thought of either back then.. but Lincoln made it that.. so Presidents of the US and other world leaders sway the Nations and make the world think its bad(slavery is though..Ownership of other humans...thats bad M'kay) but communism isnt half as bad. Its just different government.. Totallarism and Dictatorism is bad though.. having no say is not good..I don't remember how communism picks leaders but I don't think its the same as those other two?? :scratch:
Anyways just my $1.50..
I didn't understand anything of what you just said.:scratch: what does communism has to do with slavery and the civil war, or what do these 2 things have to do with iraq and Saddam at all?
But since you wanted to know how Communism elects leaders. Well Communism is always Totallarist and a Dictatorships. If it isn't any of those then it is a socialism/moderate socialism, Which is the form of goverment many european countries have now a days. Is kind of a far left democrasy.
Communism Does not work. It sounds like heaven in theory but in practise is a complete faliure, just look at the soviets :go:
The reason why it doesn't work is because there is no reason to work hard. If you make 500 shoes in a week, you get paid the same amount your lazy neighbor gets by making 50 There is no hope for economical growth because the goverment wants everyone to be equal, this in turn makes the economy fall in the long run.
Anyways this is something for other thread.
Angryminer
09-11-2006, 22:13
My comment on the death sentence:
The death sentence is murder. However many reasons there may be, it's murder. Every human being has the right to physical integrity, no matter of his heritage or history. I believe in this as a basis of human culture.
Nothing is undone by murdering Hussein. The situation of no one improves. And it proves that we didn't learn anything.
Oh, and please do not make half-reasoned comments about economical systems. If you want to discuss communism, please do it in a different thread where we can elaborate more on our thoughts and back them up better.
Angryminer
Richard:
So let's hang him and put some chemical weapon ito the room to make him die the same way he murdered the shi'ites in Djudjail and the Kurds.
You can be sure that he will never recognize how terrible things he did...
I don't say they will stop. I just say it will help some of them fighting. They don't fight for al-Qaeda. Iraq was a divided country since it was created by the British. There are 3 very diferent parts and only strong regime could keep tehm together. Look what happened in former Yugoslavia. They didn't need to be all muslims to have bloody war just several years after a strong and respected ruler (Tito) died.It just took them 10 years to start fighting..
Bushes administrative just made things going faster (after Saddam's fall this would happen either way. But some of them really fought for him. Now they will have no choice, pick some other hope and fight for it..
What to do? divide Iraq? That would destabilize all surroundinng countries. Maybe that was a hidden goal? to destabilize Syria and especially Iran.. but what abot Turkey, an US ally?
but what if Iran takes controll over shi'ites in Iraq (and we can be sure they try to have as strong influence there as possible)
Turkey and Iran will never agree to creation of independent Kurdistan and no EU nor USA will force them to do that
but why you mention Pakistan? a bit too far from Iraq...
furdude6:
I agree with Richard that it was extremely hard to understand anything from your words...
but to say that Communism was not as bad as slavery makes me thing you know nothing about communism. Slavery makes you work for someone else and limits your freedom, but communism doesn't allow you to think! And if you think against it kills you! Just in Russia(USSR) in Gulag's almost over 80 millions of people were murdered during 70 years!!
Ideology of communism wants total equality (of all but the Party members who have privilegues of course) and the way to this goal is revolution - armed revolution which quits rights of wealthy and skilled people and gives them to poor and unskilled. It is based on wrong idea of equality of people in everything, but at the same point it denies those equalities which should work (equality of all in law etc.)
furdude6
09-11-2006, 22:50
I was corelating the similarities between the fact that the US shouldn't have aided Korea or Vietnam..and the War on Iraq.. its now basically a Civil War. the US had aid I know.. but we shouldnt really have had.. Civil wars do take a while but they should be left by themselves.. it is a Civil war afterall.. World wars and wars on terrorism is different that affects the whole world not just one country. Right now the US is being considered a bully and overbering by a lot of the world becuase of this. All that should be done is get the goverment and troops up.. and we should leave..but instead, we draw it out and have way too many wounded soldiers to make it a quick victory.. Most of the US dont even care about it anymore, (as the recent election shows.. the house and senate just completely switched parties..) the US is heading for change... Hopefully for the better. as for the Communism talk.. don't mind it..:smile:..although North Korea and China are still communists so obviously it works some form of it..and we have troops in South Korea still (I think)..I dont think that made much clearer did it?
Make it simplier.. the corelation was.. that our Civil War was eventually about slavery.. (I know all about it for the many years I took history).. the other Wars we fought in and shouldn't have were about another big issue of that time and was rather menancing.. so we went to war.. we shouldn't have the korean one would have ended exactly like it did without World help I'm sure.. the two sides were evenly matched (I think)... the only reason China got in was because of outside interference.. so it woulda been South versus north... our civil war was not so evenly matched.. the south didnt have as many troops.. or resources..as the north. that was why I mentioned all that..:smile: anyways back to topic.. sorry...:wink:..
actually, do you know that the fights in Iraq started AFTER US invasion?
There was no Civil war in Iraq before US invasion. So you think that the best way now is to leave?
Ok, let's invade that country, destabilize it, invite al-Qaeda there, let them start a civil war and then leave? perfect lecture to teach someone democracy!
Only Bush and his bad advisors know the true reasons that led to the invasion. Fact is that the only legitimate (though still far from being legal!) was to destroy Saddam Hussein's regime. No WMD's were found.. and Bush epected the best possible way to happen. But once you decide to influence lives of millions of people in order to improve theri lives you have to expect the worse things to happen and prepare to stand them. And even then you can be sure something even worse will happen. But Bush expected that in 3 years Iraq will have stable democratic government? How can such a silly man rule such country?
China is economicaly now much closer to corporative capitalism controlled by the Party, while Nort Korea is "working communism" so all surrounding countries have nightmares of the moment when it definitely fails so they prefere to pay billions of dollars to make it somehow ecenomicaly survice. It is perfect example of "working communism" which absolutely devastated one country and invested all it's potential into army and controll over own people. I'm glad our communism did never reach that far!
btw, to compare Civil War in US and Korean War is like to compare Apples and Oranges. Even when you claim you know ALL about it you shuold know it wasn't about slavery at all, do you? Slavery was just one of causes
furdude6
09-11-2006, 23:11
Just all they gotta do is try and get the Iraq's goverment up and running better and military and then get out..:smile: ta da..
I didn't say just get out.. I said they need to get the goverment and troops up then leave
I also said that the US Civil War was eventually about slavery. Thats what I said I knew about slavery not the war..:wink:
and I agree with Angryminer:
Derath sentence is a murder, no difference who is the judge and who is the sentenced.
Those who think that he deserves something even worse are as bas as he was.
But considering actual mentality of muslims the death sentence is the best thing Saddam could get. Remember he is the first dictator in this part of world who got a Trial.. and that his trial was the longest in Iraq's history.
So from thi point Death Sentence is the best way.. from our perspective, those in the West who ask for something worse for him are no better than he and all muslims they criticise for "barbarism"
--
I didn't say just get out.. I said they need to get the goverment and troops up then leave
What government?
And what troops? Do youknow that periodicaly about 1/3 of new recriuts deserts from iraqi army?
So after all giving weapons to Iraqi army is to gove weapons to fighting fractions. If 1/10 of Iraqi army is able to fight as true force, it's too much. How can you leave such army to controll a country with a Civil war?
My opinion is that the US should enforce their contingent in Iraq, doubble it in minimum, not to withdraw. Once youstarted something you have to finnish it. No matter how many your lives will it cost. The only alternative is that 20 tiomes more people will die... and they are dying. Every day.
And I swear I am and always was against US engagement in Iraq. But now there is no other way. It the soup you cooked
Elvain I see your point. I know what you mean but killing Saddam won't make the fighting stop nor reduce it. You just contradicted yourself.
The people fighting and killing civilians are From the terrorist groups. They want Us to get tired of it. They know that Us can't go in long wars, Vietnam is an example of it. They want The Us to get out so they can create a civil war, take over the country and have a power house right in the middle of mid east.
Killing Saddam won't make them stop the fighting. They will continue until the Us gets tired and gets out leaving them to do as they please. So I agree in that part, We should stay there until the end.
The war was all about oil and a possible base to keep Iran, Afganistan( I meant this instead of pakistan) and israel in check. First they made up the entire weapons of mass destructing thing to have a reason for the war, then they made people believe it was about the cruel Regime and bringing democrasy.
If Bush was ever realy interested on getting the terrorists he would have pushed forward in Afganistan where they almost had Osama instead of going After Iraq. And honestly this makes me think about all the 911 attacks conspiracy theorist and the legitimace of Bush's administration. Could Bush have really killed 1000;s of his own people just to start a "crusade" of his own against the mid east? We might never know.
furdude6: The Us civil war wasn't about slavery. In fact Lincon was neither against nor for slavery. The only reason he free them was because the war wasn't going well for the Union. So promising the slaves freedom after the war was over would insitite them to take up arms against the confederates as the Southerners where using the slaves to build trenches and in many cases fight the union soldiers.
People's Republic of China
17-11-2006, 03:17
BTT: NOOOoooooooooooooo. Death sentence. BOO. There went me primetime TV. NOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooo. no more entertainment.
Aw well
BTW: I am (me not the PRC) a political writer/revolutionary. I am a veritable encyclopedia of government and warfare (As you can see, I am very modest:wink: ). If anyone wants to know anything about something, PM my profile, an I'll send an enlightening concise etc. if I know anything. If not, I'll.......think of something:wink: .
And I support the death penalty because history has proved that it works.
Well Saddam is history now. Was Hanged today at sunrise. Violance fallowed, At least 68 people died.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16389128/?GT1=8816
Well they(US government) wanted him dead, now they got a Sunni Martir to deal with.....:nono:
Good job Georgy boy..
Robbie47
31-12-2006, 00:20
Although I defenitely oppose the death penalty, I think this was the only thing to do. Would Saddam have been imprisoned for life, that would have given his followers a cause for terrorist attacks, hyjackings etc in an attempt to free him from jail.
Now he is dead and gone, I will not cry a tear for him, even though I still think the war on Iraq was not a very good idea...
Although I defenitely oppose the death penalty, I think this was the only thing to do. Would Saddam have been imprisoned for life, that would have given his followers a cause for terrorist attacks, hyjackings etc in an attempt to free him from jail.
Now he is dead and gone, I will not cry a tear for him, even though I still think the war on Iraq was not a very good idea...
and now they will stop?
they weren't fighting for ex-president Hussein, they were and are fighting against the US, shiites and all. The only thing this execution will fasten is finding of a new leader and possibly also crash of Iraq, Iranian occupation of Shiite parts of it, Iranian+Turkish occupation of Kurdistan and Saudi occupation of sunni west...
this can only fasten and strenghten Kurdish oposition in Turkey and maybe cause much larger crisis that silly Georgy boy and his "wise and true christian" neo-con advisors could every imagine with desintegration of Saudi Arabia and even more terror in the midle east. Strenghtened Iran being even closer to Israel..
damned. Though I said that for the things Hussein did he would deserve a death sentence, though I'm opposer of it. No, this is wrong
It was a bad show and a bad act. But understandable. The Iraqi judges, I suppose, wanted to hasten things up because of the increasing chaos in the nation. A failed end in a failed war.
I don't understand people who support capital punishment. I don't mean to say that he did not deserve what he got. But yet I think that nobody, no matter what reason, has the right to kill somebody else. I just think that if we decide to kill somebody we are overcoming an inhibition. And once we've stepped over that barrier once it will be easier and easier to step over it again. I would have liked to see a government in Iraq that puts human rights on the top of it's priority list. Of course I know this is nowhere near reality and hopelessly idealistic. I also understand how there could be some necessity in his death, but does that justify it?
In fact I think the fact that shocked me more about the whole thing was that the execution was announced a few hours in advance and there was almost no protest from the international community. The whole thing was rushed. In my opinion, they'd have showed greatness if they had said "He deserves death. But to us nothing justifies killing somebody else, and therefore we won't, although we have every reason to do so."
Yeah, yeah, I know that's all unrealistic. I also know whatever the political situation "demanded".
I wish people would just once be that what they call themselves: humane.
Just my worthless 2 cents.
"Whoever is free of guilt shall throw the first stone..."
vBulletin v3.5.4, Copyright ©2000-2007, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.