[Mefustae]

*Snip*

*Agrees wholeheartedly*

[Davros]

Lets play a game instead

[TrashMan]

Even though I am a conservative, I must agree with you. The man deserved to be put to death, but just plain rejoicing over a man's death is disturbing.

Some people may deserve death for what they have done, but rejoicing over it? Dancing on the streets?

The ending of ANYONES life is not something to be celebrated...

[Centrixo]

lol davros.

i would of suspected that all these problems with killing 150 people in iraq was pressure from lower down the chain of command, witch would explain the deaths.

but what i cant figure out is why would saddam want peoples hands will be cut off if they did something bad? its beyond me.

it was a bad idea marching into iraq in the first place and with well over 4000 troops dead from the USA and 100 from the UK it shouldnt of happend, i suppose thats what you get if you just the most stupid person the the world in charge of the USA and a idoit in charge of the UK, atleast if it never happend thousands of civilians and army officers wouldnt of been killed today.

saddam is dead for what ever stupid reason the US Government can come up with, its a piss poor excuse for trying to get out of the situation, as i have said things have now become worse in iraq since saddam was removed (thats the problem for the US Government has and its not going to wash away).

[Quest_techie]

This is all IMO, so feel free to shoot it down, as is your right, priveledge and probably gleeful responsibility

it seems to me that he didn't think that his killing of anyone was wrong, even seemed like he believed he had a moral imperative to do it

he habitually killed, it was part of his life, wheras the death penalty is regularly exercised to punish the single worst piece of behaviour in a persons life this was punishing a long history of a behaviour, an unremorseful, seemingly proud history of massacres, injustice, and bloody cruelty

and further, the raising of progeny to follow in those same blood marked footsteps

he was executed partially so that he would not be able to be freed and made a hero were the iraqi civil war to go "badly" as though a war could ever go well, also partially because it is a morale boost for a certain sector of america, generally those most responsible for supporting this war, the republican base <not saying there aren't dems, libretarians and out right marxist communists in the armed forces, just saying that it is on the whole more of a "red state">

need more troops, boost morale

sucks, but it's the world we live in

[Centrixo]

good reply quest techie, but for obvious reasons im not going to reply any further on this subject.

[TrashMan]

MAh..attacking Iraq was a mistake.

You can't bring democracy overnight in such a country. Something like that takes years, nay DECADES!
Untill such time the only way to stop a civil war and have at least some semblance of normality is a man like Saddam.
Just how many people died since the US invasion?

As much as people don't like him (with reason), he was right when he said that we'll be wishing he was there.

[NGTM-1R]

(I can dream, can't I)

Nope.


They should have beheaded him. It would have been more Arab, granted a greater appearance of Arabic legitimacy. Or perhaps gassed him. It would have been poetic justice to kill him with Sarin.

The man had to die, there was no suitable alternative punishment. I have to admit some vague admiration for how the Iraqi government handled this. They didn't sit on their ass or make a big fuss out of it, they just decided to kill the guy and they killed him. Efficency. They could do with more of that.

[Starkweather]

I predict this will be mentioned, and inveitably made funny by Gary Brecher, what do you think Rictor? Since I know you are probably the only one here who reads his articles.

I don't know, his death isn't that big a deal in tactical terms. It's just a symbol, like when Zarqawi was killed. Since the moment the US stepped foot on Iraqi soil, Saddam was never running things. Remember back when they trotted Saddam out for all the world to see his dishevled, beared shame, and they said that his capture was going to end the insurgency? If Iraq has shown one thing, it's that there is no Big Boss within the insurgency - hell, there's no ten bosses.

For a man who intended to be the new Saladin (ironic, considering he gassed Saladin's tribe) things haven't exactly gone according to plan. Although I can't help but wonder whether in a few years the US will be trying to ressurect his corpse, after figuring out that the only damn thing that's going to stabilize Iraq is a strongman, and that Saddam the only one with the huevos to do it. If there's one thing more awesome than a mustachioed dictator, it's a mustachioed zombie dictator. That would make Iran sweat.

I knew his death wasn't big tactically, but It just seems like Gary to make fun of a death, then tell the people who say the insurgency is gonna stop because of his death, that they are morons for thinking such thoughts.

[vyper]

I'm about 99% convinced he died instantly, having watched the google video of it. Still, wouldn't fancy going out like that...

The actual meaning of it all? There is none. He's not who the insurgents are fighting for - in fact he's next in line after the infidel on the list of things that they hate. All that happened today, is that an old man who committed terrible deeds in the past (and who perhaps deserved to die, but I'm usually against the death penalty) was executed by people who should be more worried about having a stable government and a reliable police force. About 70 other people were injured or killed in Iraq during the 24 hours that have been dominated by his death. Business as usual, Baghdad style.

In other words, nothing special happened today.

[Agent_Koopa]

Well, all I can say is that the death of one man, though he killed many and committed horrible acts, will not heal Iraq. It may even divide further a divided people. It had to happen, though. The U.S. went in with the main objective of removing Saddam, and setting up a democracy. Saddam was removed and captured, and with the U.S. helping to pull the government back together a trial and death sentence was inevitable. We are now stuck with lengthy discussions about whether Saddam could have held Iraq together better than the U.S. military. All we can do, as internet commentators, is sit back and find out what Saddam's death will do to the situation in Iraq.

And then, of course, argue about it. 

[Goober5000]

Too bad he just simply ceased to exist, and he won't ever have to be called to account for all the stuff he did before and after 1982.

On the other hand, maybe he's up there in Paradise, hanging out with the Prophet (peace be upon him) and 72 virgins.

[Mefustae]

...and 72 virgins.

I've never understood the draw of 72 virgins. Sure, the clumsiness and stuff would be cute for a while, but i'm thinking after about 30 or so you're going to start to want a finger up your ass.

As they say; to each his own, I guess.

[Janos]

(I can dream, can't I)

Nope.


They should have beheaded him. It would have been more Arab, granted a greater appearance of Arabic legitimacy. Or perhaps gassed him. It would have been poetic justice to kill him with Sarin.

The man had to die, there was no suitable alternative punishment. I have to admit some vague admiration for how the Iraqi government handled this. They didn't sit on their ass or make a big fuss out of it, they just decided to kill the guy and they killed him. Efficency. They could do with more of that.

Why did they have to die? Because he was A Bad Man (C) ?

[NGTM-1R]

Why should he be allowed to live?

[Blaise Russel]

the death penalty is regularly exercised to punish the single worst piece of behaviour in a persons life

Hey, sometimes you just have to kill a person. It's unfortunate, yes, but you don't always have any other choice. Rehabilitation isn't always possible - some people don't want to be a part of correct society. Life imprisonment, meanwhile, is too big a drain on finances, paying for food, board, guards, etc. for someone who, pretty much, doesn't deserve those things. Sometimes execution is the only possible answer.

this was punishing a long history of a behaviour, an unremorseful, seemingly proud history of massacres, injustice, and bloody cruelty

Hey, sometimes you just have to kill a person. It's unfortunate, yes, but you don't always have any other choice. Rehabilitation isn't always possible - some people don't want to be a part of correct society. Life imprisonment, meanwhile, is too big a drain on finances, paying for food, board, guards, etc. for someone who, pretty much, doesn't deserve those things. Sometimes execution is the only possible answer.

[Janos]

Why should he be allowed to live?

Because everyone has the right to live?
That's exactly why we punish killers and one of the very reasons why capital punishment sucks. We do not punish rape by raping the rapist, why should we kill the killers? And that's a stupid counterpoint anyways? WHY NOT?

Also, from more cynical POV: Were he alive, he could tell us just exactly what happened in Iraq during all these years - who supported whom, what went down there, who killed whom, stuff like that. Now Shiites got their revenge on him but Sunnis did not - if you happened to place revenge ahead of justice.

edit: Shiites != ****es

[Roanoke]

high-fives allround in the Bush household. maybe.

[NGTM-1R]

Rights can be taken away in response to criminal actions. Your right to life is really no more sancrosact then your freedom. Both can be revoked if you break the law. The more extreme the action, the greater the sanctions. When you start requiring an accountant to keep track of all the bodies, what other sanction but the most extreme is really a suitable punishment? Is it really fair to ask the very people he oppressed to pay for his continued upkeep?

I'll note that the rape analogy is a poor one at best; aside from the above, inflicting the equivalency is difficult, often impossible.

Saddam had his chance to trade information for leniency. He refused. It is doubtful he would have ever changed his mind. He supposedly went to his death still being obsinate and believing in the rightness of his actions. This ought to
also be noted for the fact that reform was probably equally out of the question. He cannot be reasoned with, he will not reform. There is no useful purpose in keeping him alive.

[brozozo]

Sorry to derail the topic a bit, but I've got a question regarding Saddam. During high school, my World History teacher told me that Saddam attempted to have George H.W. Bush assassinated. I had forgotten about it since then, and I was wonder if there is even remotely one iota of truth to that statement?