We should not have killed Saddam...

[VenomKing666]

Yes, sure he is a bad guy, sure, he killed innocent people, and maybe he DESERVED to die, but i am asking you, is it right to give to a governement te right over the life of someone else ? Even the most perverted criminal (im not talking about saddam here, its an example) ? Because errors in justice are more than common, and politicians ar humans too, i think we should not give the right to kill to anyone. Saddam should have been in prison for life, not killed. Maybe he kind of deserved it you will say. But, would you give the power of taking lives to someone ? Would you ?

[JakeHero]

I'll be throwing a party in in celebration of Saddam's death.

[VenomKing666]

Thats your choice... but why not answering the question i asked in my previous post ?

[Secretsauce]

The death of this man provided closure to the Iraqi's who had one or more of their family members taken away and killed during Saddam's regime. Saddam committed atrocites against his fellow man and paid the ultimate price with his life.

[cellardoor6]

Title:

We should not have killed Saddam...

We didn't kill him. We allowed the Iraqi government to do their own thing according to their own laws and under their own legal proceedings.

The democratically elected Iraqi government, with its written constitution, legal ordinances, and The US had nothing to do with it. The US only held Saddam in US military custody until the execution.

[VenomKing666]

Yes, i know saddam made horrible things, but would you give the power to KILL to a governement ?

[LazyDrunk]

At 12/30/06 01:20 AM, VenomKing666 wrote: Yes, sure he is a bad guy, sure, he killed innocent people, and maybe he DESERVED to die, but i am asking you, is it right to give to a governement te right over the life of someone else ? Even the most perverted criminal (im not talking about saddam here, its an example) ?

Dealing death is not easy, or always clear. But sometimes it is. Saddam's case is a tragic one, but the people of the area chose that route, like it or not.

Because errors in justice are more than common, and politicians ar humans too, i think we should not give the right to kill to anyone.

Who are we to give rights to people in a land we don't call our own?

Saddam should have been in prison for life, not killed.

What purpose would prison for serve other than a philosophical one?

But, would you give the power of taking lives to someone ? Would you ?

I'd do it myself.

[cellardoor6]

But with that said, I think the Iraqi government shouldn't have executed him.

It would have been the best thing they could have done to mend things with the Sunnis. It would have been an act of good faith to show then that the Shiite government would be sympathetic to the plight of the Sunnies. And it would have been a sign that the brutal history of Iraq would be gone and that even the most merciless of tyrants would be given mercy in the New Iraqi government.

[JakeHero]

At 12/30/06 01:33 AM, VenomKing666 wrote: Thats your choice... but why not answering the question i asked in my previous post ?

Because I disagree with your stance. It's a matter of fact, my friend.

[VenomKing666]

Because I disagree with your stance. It's a matter of fact, my friend.

You disagree with what exactly ?

[LazyDrunk]

At 12/30/06 01:52 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: And it would have been a sign that the brutal history of Iraq would be gone and that even the most merciless of tyrants would be given mercy in the New Iraqi government.

I wanted him to say that. But thanks :)

[JudgeDredd]

At 12/30/06 01:48 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: We didn't kill him. The democratically elected Iraqi government, with its written constitution, legal ordinances, and the US had nothing to do with it.

You can't be serious?!

I just don't know how you get this warped view of the world. It's like nothing ever happens but what Bush tells you happens. You are truely an example of the media lead Brainwashed Generation.

.

[LazyDrunk]

At 12/30/06 02:31 AM, I7REI7I7 wrote:
You can't be serious?!

Grow up.

"We" could've dropped a grenade down his spiderhole and confirmed the kill with his dental records. We put his fate into the legacy of his former nation.

[JudgeDredd]

At 12/30/06 02:33 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: "We" could've dropped a grenade down his spiderhole and confirmed the kill with his dental records. We put his fate into the legacy of his former nation.

Media Circus (..that cost a lot of lawyers lives).

That's not how it's done in Old Iraq. The New Iraq will as likely be divided up into little states like America. Perhaps that'll be the victory?

[LazyDrunk]

At 12/30/06 02:47 AM, I7REI7I7 wrote:

At 12/30/06 02:33 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: "We" could've dropped a grenade down his spiderhole and confirmed the kill with his dental records. We put his fate into the legacy of his former nation.

Media Circus (..that cost a lot of lawyers lives).

Without the media's presence, who would've authenticated his trial? Just a thought.

That's not how it's done in Old Iraq. The New Iraq will as likely be divided up into little states like America. Perhaps that'll be the victory?

Perhaps. It may be our place to suggest such a course of action, but it's not our decision. Given America's history of dissension and civil war (albeit hardly comparable due to technological advances) I'd think Iraq would be better off united as one nation consisting of three peoples. But if the people's only choice is to fight or be slaughtered by their countrymen, could you blame the newly elected government for attempting to create seperate nations?

"Victory" in that area was already achieved. Saddam is out and a new government is in. Yes, it would be nice if everyone played nice and didn't wreak havoc in their homeland, but that shit ain't reality.

Our goals there have changed from overthrowing their government to solidifying peace in the region. But. We can no longer provide the foreign backbone to their newly-founded law-enforcement precincts. They are an independant nation now, merely seeking aid from a new ally, the United States.

Be bitter all you want, and cry unjust war, but this war was not a total one, nor was it ever.

[JudgeDredd]

At 12/30/06 02:59 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: Be bitter all you want, and cry unjust war, but this war was not a total one, nor was it ever.

It was never going to be a total war, it was totally onesided. It was a walkover, infact just like Iraq going into Kuwait was a walkover. And what did the UN do when that happened? Nothing, because America took the lead ..and still is doing so some 16+ years later.

This goes to the core, and isn't something that is over because the victims of Saddam's regime have finally seen Saddam himself face his own style of justice.

[hongkongexpress]

I can't believe that I was watching Eragon and Night at the Museum, while all this was happening.

Oh well. That now makes, Saddam, Milosovic, John Paul II, Ford, Pinochet. That my dieing car has outlasted.

[LazyDrunk]

At 12/30/06 03:27 AM, I7REI7I7 wrote:
This goes to the core, and isn't something that is over because the victims of Saddam's regime have finally seen Saddam himself face his own style of justice.

Meaning Hitler was merely a man before his time, if my thoughts on this have ever been clear.

Or can the world be better than that?

I've always believed . . . had faith in . . . the balance. But part of keeping balance in all things great and small, few and many, means lending leeway to free choice, regardless of the consequences.

I apologize for not being more specific.

[Bwave]

The death sentence isnt as bad as a life sentence, as weird as that sounds. Either way, you sit in a cell waiting for the day you die. With the death penalty, you dont have to wait as long.

[Rebbay]

I believe that Saddam was punished fairly. One guilty life for thousands of innocent ones? That's injust.

[cellardoor6]

At 12/30/06 02:31 AM, I7REI7I7 wrote:

At 12/30/06 01:48 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: We didn't kill him. The democratically elected Iraqi government, with its written constitution, legal ordinances, and the US had nothing to do with it.

You can't be serious?!

I just don't know how you get this warped view of the world. It's like nothing ever happens but what Bush tells you happens. You are truely an example of the media lead Brainwashed Generation.

Ok conspiracy theorist say and think whatever you want to so you can hold on to your pathetic bias .But while you wallow in your own delusions, we sane humans in the real world (not just Americans, and certainly not just Republicans) are going to interpret the facts as they are, which are:

- Iraq had democratic elections and even some anti-Americans were put into regional offices. These elected officials drafted the Iraqi constitution, put in order legal ordinances for positions of authority, put in place legal and judicial offices, local and national laws and ordained Iraqis to office.

- The US allowed the Iraqis to try Saddam in THEIR COURT with THEIR LAWS. The Iraqis found him guilty and sentenced him to death by hanging in accordance with their laws.

- When the Iraqis requested to take custody of Saddam Hussein for execution the US handed him over. The Iraqis executed him, and now hes dead because the Iraqi government willed it.

Therefore the US didn't kill Saddam Hussein and your stupid, childish, misguided objections to this simple truth only make you look like a fucking imbecile.

If the US wanted to kill Saddam Hussein we could have done so over 2 years ago when we found him in a hole in the ground. It certainly would have saved a whole lot of trouble.

So take a step into the realm of reality for once you fucking moron. Because you certainly cannot provide any support to the contrary except by spreading your pathetic attacks that amount to: "U R liek brainwashed by liek da media and dah Bushitler corporations lolzz."

[Markface]

At 12/30/06 01:20 AM, VenomKing666 wrote: is it right to give to a governement te right over the life of someone else ?

Yes.

[JudgeDredd]

At 12/30/06 03:31 AM, LazyDrunk wrote: Meaning Hitler was merely a man before his time, if my thoughts on this have ever been clear.

Or can the world be better than that?

I apologize for not being more specific.

Ok, I get your point, i think. It's one we hear quite often.. "look at Germany, look at Japan, look at what good we've achieved in those examples".

But Iraq is not the 1st example of failure, nor is it the only example right now, nor is the list of failures since WW2 a short one. In fact i think the only much vaunted victory since WW2 - the Cold War - appears to only skin-deep (more of a pause than a victory).

The failure is not that America is constantly fighting battles in someone else's land, but that it repeatedly undermines the power and tenets that the UN was created for; "to end all wars".

So yeah, the world can be better than that, but America's lead has long been tarnished, yet the Administration's response as 2007 rolls around, is to do more of the same rather than face facts; that the United Nations is not something to be usurped whenever it suits an American President leading up to some ever approaching election, or for his buddies in the military, or for profit motive, etc, etc.

[JudgeDredd]

At 12/30/06 03:40 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: ..and your stupid, childish, misguided objections to this simple truth only make you look like a fucking imbecile.

pass.

If the US wanted to kill Saddam Hussein we could have done so over 2 years ago when we found him in a hole in the ground. It certainly would have saved a whole lot of trouble. So take a step into the realm of reality for once you fucking moron. Because you certainly cannot provide any support to the contrary.

They DID try to kill him.. (tomahawk missiles) ..but they failed.

By the time the higher chain of command had been notified that Saddam had been captured in that hole, i pretty sure photos had been leaked, and it was kinda too late to do him then and there. The American soliders who found him were as surprised as anyone that he was even there, so they didn't go in with express authorization to "take him out", like they did with his sons.

[Leeloo-Minai]

At 12/30/06 04:28 AM, I7REI7I7 wrote: The American soliders who found him were as surprised as anyone that he was even there, so they didn't go in with express authorization to "take him out", like they did with his sons.

They had recieved a tip from one of his closest aides at the time. It wasn't a perchance find, uncovering his hole in the ground.

Yes, the troops did have express authorization to engage him differently than other spiderhole dwelling old regime members. Usually, they drop a grenade down to clear the pit. The purpose of not killing him was to let the new government decide his fate, albeit an uphill climb on ice.

Hopefully the U.S.'s outstanding participation and responsibility within the UN will outweigh misguided reprimands towards world peace. Because world peace is not on the agenda of many nations, including some members on the UN itself.

[JudgeDredd]

At 12/30/06 04:38 AM, Leeloo-Minai wrote:

At 12/30/06 04:28 AM, I7REI7I7 wrote: The American soliders who found him were as surprised as anyone that he was even there, so they didn't go in with express authorization to "take him out", like they did with his sons.

They had recieved a tip from one of his closest aides at the time. It wasn't a perchance find, uncovering his hole in the ground.

I know. But it wasn't exactly the first credible 30 million dollar tipoff the Army ever received or followed up on, and as far as i understand they were told he was at that location (the nearby building) without any specifics of the tiny bunker hideout. I think that small coffin-like box and his dishevelled appearence was well worth his capture and publicity, the whole trial, not so.

[MarkArandjus]

Capital punishment makes me sick.
They really do belong in the middle ages, it's legal murder.

And even if the ol bugger deserved to die, did they have to tape the poor bastards death?
They supposedly danced around his body, give the guy a fucking break and have some civil and professional decency.

It really brings me down as a human being.

[Whiplesh]

The US government shouldn't have killed him this early. Because of his death, western countries or any allies with America will be targeted for any terrorist attack. They maybe should have killed Saddam when there are not as many terrorist attacks going on (Whenever that will be).

[Nylo]

At 12/30/06 01:20 AM, VenomKing666 wrote: is it right to give to a governement te right over the life of someone else ? Even the most perverted criminal (im not talking about saddam here, its an example) ? Because errors in justice are more than common, and politicians ar humans too, i think we should not give the right to kill to anyone. Saddam should have been in prison for life, not killed. Maybe he kind of deserved it you will say. But, would you give the power of taking lives to someone ? Would you ?

Yes, government should have certain ultimate powers, because government is rulled by the consent of the goverened. Society has nothing to gain by not teaching ourselves that there are ultimate consquences to pay for crimes against what bellies our fabric of unity as human beings.

[Stagnant]

I agree with you there. He should've been sentenced life in prison instead of being killed because killing him is hypocritical. Also, US troops have been sent in by George Bush and killed millions of innocent Iraqies which is just as bad if not worse. If Saddam was hung then why shouldn't George Bush be hung?