Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

oh sure he murdererd people by the hundreds, sure he was a dictator, sure he was the most horrible man since hitler but its imoral to kill a person.

What a load of shit that man should have been killed at birth!!!

The trials ain't done!

"On November 5, 2006, Saddam Hussein was found guilty of crimes against humanity in ordering the deaths of 148 Shi'ite villagers in the town of Dujail in 1982 and sentenced to death by hanging."

Source

And we ALL know that Saddam killed a lot more. So if he should face the gallows, then why shouldn't Bush be judged and be sentenced to death? His troops has killed more civilians than 149.

And another thing, how about the Israeli government? They've killed more childrens than 149, and now we're only talking about the children!

That Sucks!

If I didn't know any better, I would say this is very reminiscent of the old Iraq ways. Guys in street clothes, hanging some guy in a dungeon.

His death will probably cause more problems than solve them, anyway.

As I've posted in another topic, if you are going to convict and execute one dictator, you should convict and dictate all of them.

In other words, Pinochet shouldn't have died of natural causes aged 91 a couple of weeks ago, and neither should've Idi Amin or Pol Pot in the last few years (albeit at different ages).

At 12/30/06 10:36 AM, Mercator wrote:
Your a fucking retard. We havent even killed A MILLION INSURGENTS YET. We do not kill Innocent Iraqis. We stop those who decide to plant roadside bombs and mortar us. We kill those who are about to kill those who are innocent. So plz you fucking 12 year old GROW UP AND LEARN.

Let's see, thanks to the US, there's a big hole where 650,000 Iraqis should be standing - and, no, they certainly weren't all insurgents, Iraqi military, members of the terrorist group du jour, which would make a notable number of them civillians.

Don't try and justify it by your implication that they'd be planting roadside bombs and shooting at the troops or somehow you're protecting them from killing innocent people, because that's the sort of psychosis that usually comes from somebody trigger happy that wants to justify their actions and that errection they're sporting.

At 12/30/06 10:34 AM, D2KVirus wrote: As I've posted in another topic, if you are going to convict and execute one dictator, you should convict and dictate all of them.

That's about as rediculous as when my brother asked why the police weren't pulled over for breaking the speedlimit during a chase down the highway... because afterall, the cops were breaking the speedlimit just as much as the guy they were chasing.

There's a difference between a government instigating the death penalty and nations rising up to overthrow a dictator. One man condemned by a jury on evidence and suspicion, or confessing to someone's murder is a lot different than someone throwing insurgents in wood chippers, castrating enemies, hanging women upside down during their period, etc. He's tortured and murdered people on a massive scale. When the people rise up, condemn a dictator for his crimes and execute him, it's acceptable because, generally, that's the only way to get rid of a dictator. Normal politicians (though sleazy and corrupt) are able to be voted out of office. Furthermore, the execution of a dictator is not an easy task to fulfill. Look at Castro. People have been trying to overthrow him and execute him for years. He's committed crimes just as heinous as Saddam; however, he's still alive (though not for long thanks to stomach cancer). When a dictator is overthrown, it's a momentous task that many people are too poor and too afraid to undertake. The fact that the Iraqi's (and the rest of the world) actually accomplished this task shows how determined they were to rid themselves of him, and how truly awful a man he really was.

At 12/30/06 11:51 AM, Proteas wrote: That's about as rediculous as when my brother asked why the police weren't pulled over for breaking the speedlimit during a chase down the highway..

Hah. Almost as ridiculous as my questioning the legality of Saddam's trial, for the fact that is result of an illegal invasion of Iraq.

.
.
or how about this one...

The United Nations convention against torture, ratified by the US and endorsed by President Bush, states that “no state shall expel, return or extradite a person to another state where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture”.

So here's my question: Isn't Capital Punishment akin to a form of Torture?

At 12/30/06 01:59 PM, I7REI7I7 wrote: So here's my question: Isn't Capital Punishment akin to a form of Torture?

Torture:

1. the act of inflicting excruciating pain, as punishment or revenge, as a means of getting a confession or information, or for sheer cruelty.
2. a method of inflicting such pain.
3. Often, tortures. the pain or suffering caused or undergone.
4. extreme anguish of body or mind; agony.
5. a cause of severe pain or anguish.

Generally, torture means prolonged pain. Saddam's execution was a quick snap of the neck and all was over. He wasn't caused extreme pain and the only anguish he probably felt was the emotional fear for his life. Of course, someone who brutally tortures other people shouldn't really be all that afraid of death since they're around it all the time.

Party!!!!!

At 12/30/06 02:25 PM, Arganox wrote: Party!!!!!

My thought exactly, good sir.

At 12/30/06 01:56 AM, VenomKing666 wrote:

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

You disagree with what exactly ?

With you not wanting him to be executed. I wanted that motherfucker to dangle. And now he's riding the Hellway Railroad, a chuga chuga chuga, a chuga chuga chuga choo choo!

At 12/30/06 01:43 AM, Secretsauce wrote: 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.

Killing someone else isn't going to raise the dead.

At 12/30/06 04:33 PM, elkrobber wrote: Killing someone else isn't going to raise the dead.

No, but it may prevent others from being killed.

At 12/30/06 04:47 PM, LadyGrace wrote:

At 12/30/06 04:33 PM, elkrobber wrote: Killing someone else isn't going to raise the dead.

No, but it may prevent others from being killed.

Locking him up would have done that as well. How's that an argument for killing instead of jailing?

So what. The USA still won't get to steal the Iraqi oil, as there are still plenty of militias around. Hopefully Americans will be driven out of Iraq without one drop of oil.

Also, Bush has commited plenty of crimes against humanity, too. Does that mean that he also deserves capital punishment?

At 12/30/06 04:58 PM, Togukawa wrote: Locking him up would have done that as well. How's that an argument for killing instead of jailing?

Because former dictators always have some sort of power somewhere. There will always be those willing to help, whether they're relatives, friends, or just get paid off. Dictators always have their claws in someone and always have a chance of escape. That's why they're so hard to overthrow.

At 12/30/06 05:13 PM, LadyGrace wrote: Because former dictators always have some sort of power somewhere. There will always be those willing to help, whether they're relatives, friends, or just get paid off. Dictators always have their claws in someone and always have a chance of escape. That's why they're so hard to overthrow.

Exactly. Some have sworn him allegiance to the death. In his name many have and would have died. Such might still happen, but for a limited time and to a limited extent.

At 12/30/06 03:10 PM, BanditByte wrote:
With you not wanting him to be executed. I wanted that motherfucker to dangle. And now he's riding the Hellway Railroad, a chuga chuga chuga, a chuga chuga chuga choo choo!

Why do you wanted him to die exactly ?

And I only say that we should not give the right to kill to a governement...

OK, I'm probably going to get flamed for saying this, but I gotta say it: Saddam Hussein was a good leader, compared to the leaders of the other Middle Eastern nations. I'm not saying that he was a good guy or anything, I'm just saying that he was alot better than some of the other dictators in the region. Saddam hussein did more for women's rights than any other Middle Easter leader. Under Saddam's rule, women were considered equal to men, they were not required to wear hijabs or burqas, and they held government positions. In fact, Iraq was the only Islamic country in the Middle East not under Sharia, which is the extremely oppressive system of Islamic Law.

Sure, Saddam killed a lot of people, but trust me, the dictators in other Islamic nations are 10 times worse. And sometimes a dictator is necessary. I mean, fear was all that was keeping Iraq together. There was so much pent up hatred among the people that Saddam Hussein needed to be a real hardass to keep everything in order. Look, as soon as we toppled Saddam Hussein's regime, all of Iraq went to ####, and now it's on the verge of a civil war. America never should have even gone into Iraq in the first place. Now we're stuck in there because Bush doesn't have the balls to admit that he lied about his reasons for going in there in the first place, and he still thinks that he's got everyone fooled, he thinks he can keep telling us that victory is right around the corner, when in fact, things are getting worse. Iraq is beyond repair, we can't bring about a democracy, we can't make the situation any better. The longer we stay in there, the more people hate us, and the more American troops get killed. All we can do now is pull out, before this turns into another Vietnam.

Hanging video.

Owtch. :O

At 12/30/06 01:48 AM, VenomKing666 wrote: Yes, i know saddam made horrible things, but would you give the power to KILL to a governement ?

We call it the Judiciary.

The man was killed by his own people. It was the citizens of Iraq that made that decision, I think they made a good one. If a man is killed by his own people what does that tell you?

At 12/30/06 06:06 PM, Gunter45 wrote:

At 12/30/06 01:48 AM, VenomKing666 wrote: Yes, i know saddam made horrible things, but would you give the power to KILL to a governement ?

We call it the Judiciary.

I still would not give the power to kill to somebody, especially bush...

we should have killed sudam 15 years ago duhh
it woulda stoped the madness and killing and another war that our sped president made cuse we was copping his daddy cause hes a fallower....

At 12/30/06 07:42 PM, jesusowns wrote: we should have killed sudam 15 years ago duhh

Youve been saying a lot of durr lately. Do you have a brain disfuntion?

At 12/30/06 01:59 PM, I7REI7I7 wrote: Hah. Almost as ridiculous as my questioning the legality of Saddam's trial, for the fact that is result of an illegal invasion of Iraq.

We've been in Iraq for... how long now? Going on five years? There hasn't been any action *snicker* by the U.N. or anybody else for that matter against us that amounted to anything more than just the usual fingerwagging. If they haven't taken any "real" action *snicker* by now, I sincerely doubt they will at any point in the future.

As for the legality of Saddam's trial... it's done, and the sentence has been carried out by order of a government comprised of the people he used to rule. It's a bit late in the game to be griping about the legality of it.

So here's my question: Isn't Capital Punishment akin to a form of Torture?

The way he used to hang people was torture; slow death by asphyxiation. The way the iraqi's hanged him last night was a helluva lot more humane than that (as cited by stafffighter), more humane than he deserved in my opinion.

Just remember, I think Sadam was a BAD man who can be compared to Hitler with how he attempted his own form of genocide. I believe his crimes against humanity were awfull and he deserved life in prison.

His unfair hearing was a kangaroo court, just like his corts killing the Sheite. the US had total controle over his death sentence and did what they could to ensure it happened. They knew human rights activists would protest this, and they knew that some outspoken supporters would protest this.

I fear this may have all been in the US's best interest, in hopes the extreemests would wager war, and attack US soil. I'm scared for inocent Americans that may die because their current government needs more fear in their people to support more warfare in the middle east.

If the reactionary groups do attack. Inocent people will die on US soil, and more inocent people, both American soldiers and Saudi citicens caught in the crossfire. and any Canadian soldiers caught there will probably be killed by the US friendly fire as usual.

This is coming at a strategic point in time where the US majority doesnt approve of the war and the end of the presidents 2nd term is coming up. The US needs the extreemest to attack in order to build that fear factor once more. Sadam knew this, thats why he asked his people not to hate the Americans in his last letter sent out. But who listens to a dead leader (more like a dead tyrant, but anyway).

I am scared for everyone living in the USA right now. please prepare for the worst over the next few years. I don't want ignorance to be the cause of your death.

The Iraqi government killed him. It was their decision. Most of the world doesn't agree with their decision. What you're saying is half false, and half old news. We didn't kill him, and no, it shouldn't have been done.