| Maruga 29.12.2006 22:20 |
According to CNN, Saddam died 19 minutes ago... Another dictator is dead... there are another dictators that haven't been judged yet... |
| Carol! the Musical 29.12.2006 22:52 |
I saw that, too! Harharharharhar. |
| john bodega 29.12.2006 23:12 |
First James Brown, and now this? |
| AspiringPhilosophe 29.12.2006 23:26 |
**rolls her eyes** And cue the massive upswing in suicide attacks in Iraq |
| sparrow 21754 29.12.2006 23:27 |
well now that they got saddam, how bout they just...you know....get osama and his cronies cuz thats why we have this WHOLE GODDAMN WAR GOING. maybe when bushes daughters are president theyll go after them then sorry, but instead of allowing the others to continue their terror because of tihs distraction. ill stop now. glad the tyrant is dead it might make things a little nicer for those people. but now that thats all over, its time to fight the real battle, and make the world not so belted down again. |
| Lester Burnham 29.12.2006 23:34 |
I read that the whole thing really moved at a breakneck pace. |
| Maruga 29.12.2006 23:41 |
As i said, there are some dictator that haven't been judged yet... all of you judge by yourself. |
| The Real Wizard 29.12.2006 23:46 |
Okay, so the troops get to go home now, right? The point *was* to get Saddam, right? Yeah, I know it's a stupid post... but I just had to. |
| Maruga 29.12.2006 23:52 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: Okay, so the troops get to go home now, right? The point *was* to get Saddam, right? Yeah, I know it's a stupid post... but I just had to.It's not stupid... it's fine, it's your point of view... and i think the same, now Saddam's dead, USA troops should go home. |
| Megamike The GREAT 29.12.2006 23:56 |
I agree.. Saddam was our main focus in Iraq.. with him gone we should just pack it in and leave.. and silly Saddam.. surrendering to the troops without even putting up a fight.. HA.. teaches him.. |
| Deacon Fan 29.12.2006 23:58 |
I believe "President" Bush is responsible for far more senseless deaths than Saddam, but it's a start. |
| 1234567890 30.12.2006 02:16 |
Bubbles the Bunny I love you. |
| Rick 30.12.2006 04:22 |
He was the real Mr. Bad Guy. |
| YourValentine 30.12.2006 04:54 |
Nothing good can come from this, just more hatred and violence. I am so disgusted - the rushed execution, to call this a "fair trial", government representatives "dancing around the body", CNN showing some rich exiled Iraqui guys cheering in the streets ("no women, of course" as the reporter admiringly smiled) over and over again was more than a civilized person can endure. This will make the Iraq more violent and the world less safe. The voices demanding to uphold human rights and democratic values were not heard at all. |
| Serry... 30.12.2006 05:09 |
The Middle Ages are back! Oops, sorry I've meant - American democracy won! No difference though... |
| Sonia Doris 30.12.2006 05:22 |
Oh, hail Bush! We all worship thee... *throws rotten onions towards the White House* |
| MarkieKnopflie 30.12.2006 05:27 |
javascript:thumbnail('/template/ver2-0/components/thumbnail.jsp?id=74899',500,377) copy and paste ;) photo of him here when is going to be executed :D in the left side, a little high, under the fat black letters,you'll see :D:D:D LOOK at those guys with bivaks XD |
| eenaweena 30.12.2006 05:27 |
ooooh... 1 dictator down. a bazillion more to go. who's up next to die through firing squad? Kim Jong Il? Fidel Castro? |
| .DeaconJohn. 30.12.2006 05:42 |
I agree with YV - very well put. I've seen a picture of him with the noose around his neck on the CNN site - that is plain unnecessary. But that image will be great for those who want to look up to him as a martyr. I hope that people realize that whilst there is no dount that Saddam's regime was nothing less than horrific, there is something wrong about taking such delight in the execution of someone, and in a so called civilized country we have news articles with hyperlinks such as "Watch noose placed around Hussein's neck", as if we really need to see that. |
| Aquillas 30.12.2006 06:03 |
Who's next?... |
| DudleyFufkin 30.12.2006 06:06 |
Ah come on, give the guy a break, people always hone in on the bad stuff and forget the good stuff he did to the economy. |
| Crezchi 30.12.2006 06:23 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote: Okay, so the troops get to go home now, right? The point *was* to get Saddam, right? Yeah, I know it's a stupid post... but I just had to.Even though i am against the war, i think that withdrawing now would be very stupid. I think the troops should stay and at least help Iraq become more stable as a government, but not take over. And again, i am an Anti-Bush person, but Tony Blair is as much to blame also. |
| The Fairy King 30.12.2006 06:30 |
*sigh* |
| john bodega 30.12.2006 07:01 |
Well I've made a video tribute to the man link |
| 7Innuendo7 30.12.2006 08:48 |
James Brown, Gerald Ford, Saddam Hussein. James Brown is the only one worthy of a state funeral. Hail to the godfather of soul and mother popcorn! As my dentist said Thursday, "crown him with many crowns..." |
| thomasquinn 32989 30.12.2006 08:54 |
MrFart wrote: happy he's deadThat's why you shouldn't have voting-rights: you are an ignorant, blatantly STUPID fuck-ass. Die. |
| thomasquinn 32989 30.12.2006 08:56 |
YourValentine wrote: Nothing good can come from this, just more hatred and violence. I am so disgusted - the rushed execution, to call this a "fair trial", government representatives "dancing around the body", CNN showing some rich exiled Iraqui guys cheering in the streets ("no women, of course" as the reporter admiringly smiled) over and over again was more than a civilized person can endure. This will make the Iraq more violent and the world less safe. The voices demanding to uphold human rights and democratic values were not heard at all.Exactly. If he keeps this style of 'liberation' up, Bush will have more deaths to his name than Stalin... |
| eenaweena 30.12.2006 09:13 |
^true. it's also true that bush may be the bigger tyrant than saddam hussein, fidel castro, and all the other dictator-tyrants alive. too bad he's got all the other presidents/world leaders under his spell. (ex: blair, arroyo just to name a few) |
| thomasquinn 32989 30.12.2006 09:22 |
^ Bush is the last spasm of a dying superpower. The Age of the West has come and gone. Asia is taking over slowly but surely. |
| Lisser 30.12.2006 11:16 |
.DeaconJohn. wrote: I agree with YV - very well put. I've seen a picture of him with the noose around his neck on the CNN site - that is plain unnecessary. But that image will be great for those who want to look up to him as a martyr. I hope that people realize that whilst there is no dount that Saddam's regime was nothing less than horrific, there is something wrong about taking such delight in the execution of someone, and in a so called civilized country we have news articles with hyperlinks such as "Watch noose placed around Hussein's neck", as if we really need to see that.I agree with this also. I would be satisfied if they put Saddam in prison and threw away the key but to hang him and then dance around his body?? This will only lead to more violence and archaic behavior. We are not moving in the right direction at all and I hate to see what the future holds if this is the way people are going to be treated. Yes, I am well aware that Saddam was a tyrant but to punish a tyrant by being a tyrant to them...what does that say? That it is ok? Bah. |
| carboengine 30.12.2006 13:01 |
I am shocked! I didn't think this would happen so soon (my statement being based on comparing it to our American justice system of appeals that goes on for years.) Ramsey Clark, former attorney general under President Lyndon Johnson, was instrumental in seeing that Saddam got a fair trial(s) in a country that basically had no judicial system whatsoever. For anyone interested, this link is lengthy and is written by Ramsey Clark. link |
| user name 30.12.2006 14:38 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:Can't you actually argue with points anymore? I know you can do it, you've done it before.MrFart wrote: happy he's deadThat's why you shouldn't have voting-rights: you are an ignorant, blatantly STUPID fuck-ass. Die. |
| Ale Solan 30.12.2006 15:40 |
link |
| brENsKi 30.12.2006 15:45 |
BBC News 24 just couldn't get the hang of it...they were all over the place swinging from here to there coulda done with updating their screen captions though..."breaking noose" woulda suited the scenes better |
| Ale Solan 30.12.2006 15:59 |
I wonder if Serry hanged Saddam. He likes to hang people. |
| thomasquinn 32989 30.12.2006 16:19 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote:I do not feel like arguing with people who don't have the brain to recognize an argument from a dildo. This one goes in that category.<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote:Can't you actually argue with points anymore? I know you can do it, you've done it before.MrFart wrote: happy he's deadThat's why you shouldn't have voting-rights: you are an ignorant, blatantly STUPID fuck-ass. Die. |
| Serry... 30.12.2006 16:20 |
<font><font color=red>Alex Solan</font> wrote: I wonder if Serry hanged Saddam. He likes to hang people.He didn't spam on QZ. No reasons to hang him by Serry's hanging forces. |
| iron eagle 30.12.2006 16:33 |
that man got more justice and fairness then any of the hundreds of thousands of people he had exterminated over the years..... Saddam had approximately 40 of his own relatives murdered. 1980-88: Iran-Iraq war left 150,000 to 340,000 Iraqis and 450,000 to 730,000 Iranians dead. 1983-1988: Documented chemical attacks by Iraqi regime caused some 30,000 Iraqi and Iranian deaths 1988: Chemical attack on Kurdish village of Halabja killed approximately 5,000 people 1987-1988: Iraqi regime used chemical agents in attacks against at least 40 Kurdish villages. 1990-91: 1,000 Kuwaitis were killed in Iraqi invasion of Kuwait 1991: Bloody suppression of Kurdish and Shi'a uprisings in northern and southern Iraq killed at least 30,000 to 60,000. At least 2,000 Kurdish villages were destroyed during the campaign of terror. those facts being posted ........i must say I am no big fan of executions i also find the custom of celebration and dancing around a body just plain disgusting... Iraq and its elected government and court system (oh i am sure i will get lectured on those words) decided his fate and carried it out...anyway you look at it, they treated him better then he ever treated others when he was President for Life with 99.9% of the vote all i can hope for is peace and stability in that country- and that the religious factions can get their shit together instead of killing each other in Allahs name and in the name of Jihad |
| thomasquinn 32989 30.12.2006 17:02 |
So in short, what you're saying is: be evil to the evil. Well, that settles that, then. As soon as we label someone evil, we can do to him/her what he/she did to others. Rape rapists, murder murderers, cut their hands off, burn them at the stake. Did we come out of caves for THAT? To find NOTHING changed? |
| Ale Solan 30.12.2006 17:03 |
Serry Vietinhoff wrote:Forces, oh my. I thought you worked on your own. I'd ask you to let me join in your forces but I'm not a hanging's especialist. I do have experience in beating people with socks filled with coins. Am I required?<font><font color=red>Alex Solan</font> wrote: I wonder if Serry hanged Saddam. He likes to hang people.He didn't spam on QZ. No reasons to hang him by Serry's hanging forces. |
| iron eagle 30.12.2006 17:17 |
read into it whatever makes you happy |
| unknown 30.12.2006 18:00 |
Just posting a rethoric question which is floating around in my mind now: Should cruelty be THE answer to cruelty? |
| I♥The80's 30.12.2006 18:45 |
Dasvedaniya Saddam!!! :P |
| AspiringPhilosophe 30.12.2006 18:45 |
<b><font color=B22222>daria wrote: Just posting a rethoric question which is floating around in my mind now: Should cruelty be THE answer to cruelty?According to Hammurabi's Law Code, yes. According to the Bible, yes. According to George Bush, yes. My my my....how far humanity has advanced *sarcasm* |
| yamaha 30.12.2006 23:02 |
Am I correct in thinking that there are people here who think that Saddam could have been rehabilitated and returned to society? Or is it that living in a jail cell is more humane than death? If you think that, then you must be living a trivial life. It could not be possible that exile would be used. That is a vacation for a man who obviously had no feelings toward his country or his people. TQ, History Girl. What would you do if you had to punish Saddam for his life of evil. Your response must be viable. ie: it may not involve President Bush and a cement enema. Personally, I'm ready to ship off to Mars. Earth is fubar. I'm seriously tired of all the bitching and moaning. It's fine to not agree with the current state of affairs. If you can't come up with a workable solution, stfu and hang on for the ride. TQ. You have gotten a serious burr up your butt over this issue. Even though I don't agree with the vast majority of the things you say, I often enjoy reading your viewpoints. Since Saddam was executed, though, you have lost your usual knack for dubious research. Here's to more spirited debate in the future! Mike |
| AspiringPhilosophe 30.12.2006 23:48 |
In no way did I say that Saddam could be rehabilitated. He was a dangerous man, and needed to be dealt with. However, there are only two things that his death has done: 1) Made him a martyr, especially with the video and extensive media coverage which will only spur on the sectarian tensions that are flaming between the Sunni's, Shiites and Kurds and 2) Proved that we are no better than him. By handing him over to forces who we knew full well were going to kill him, we might as well have put the noose around his neck ourselves. Does that accomplish anything? The people he killed are already dead, and they give less than a shit about Saddam since they are dead. The families of the victims may be happy now, but it won't bring their relatives back, and will only spur on more violence. Those who support him will only view his killing as unjust, and will use it as another war cry against the enemy, thus leading to more killing of innocents. That rise in violence will only make those people who are still neutral to the US wonder whether democracy is really that much better, since it just led to more needless violence. That being said, Saddam was an evil man who under no circumstances should have been allowed to escape from custody. However, in killing him we've given him exactly what he wanted...and end to his suffering and a martyrs death. Do you honestly think that man who was accustomed to palaces and thrones and servants and harems was enjoying his life in solitary confinement, in the hands of the people he wanted to destroy? What should have been done, and what would have been done if I'd have had my way, is this: 1) Bring him to trial in Iraq, in the US and in the Hague. All the trials would have had the same outcome, a guilty verdict, but the trial is what was important (though not neccessarily fair). His crimes, which he tried to cover up from the world so badly, will be exposed to the world, for all to see, so everyone will truly know how evil he was. Collective judgement will be passed, and he'll be forced to live with the fact that he's been internationally humiliated and anything he's worked for is now as good as gone. 2) Retain custody of him, in solitary confinment, even if courts sentence him to death, because I don't think The Hague would sentence him to death, even though the US and Iraq would, you can't undo death. So The Hague would have priority in the punishments...likely life imprisonment. 3) Imprison him in solitary confinment for the rest of his natural life. No visitors, no cameras, no media playing out the story of his captivity or reading his letters. The rest of the world will move on, completely forgetting his existance. An Egomaniac like him would wilt like a flower on a hot summer day without anyone to pay attention to him. He would also have a lot of time to think about the fact that his sons are dead, and his legacy dies with him. 4) When he dies a natural death, don't tell anyone about it. No media, no press releases, not even the family. Simply bury him in secret, where no one will find him. He'll die alone and forgotten, which will not only deprive him of the press coverage and martyrs death he wanted, but will preserve the lives of the hundreds of innocent people who will now die because of violence to avenge his "murder". |
| user name 30.12.2006 23:51 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: So in short, what you're saying is: be evil to the evil. Well, that settles that, then. As soon as we label someone evil, we can do to him/her what he/she did to others. Rape rapists, murder murderers, cut their hands off, burn them at the stake. Did we come out of caves for THAT? To find NOTHING changed?What you're implying is that killing a murderer for punishment is the same as a murderer killing for his own selfish reasons. I must disagree and say that they are quite different. Intentions and motives will always be far more important than the end result. That is why in the law we have things that would excuse or mitigate the punishments of the murder of another human life - temporary insanity, accident, etc. Therefore, killing someone in the name of the law and justice is not inherently evil; killing someone as an accident is not inherently evil; killing someone out of negligence is less evil than willfully killing someone for one's own personal reason...all I'm saying is that there are definitely several deeper levels than "person A caused person B's death, and that is evil." |
| YourValentine 31.12.2006 05:49 |
"Therefore, killing someone in the name of the law and justice is not inherently evil" That is just your opinion, not a fact. Actually, in most parts of the civilzed world people think the contrary. That is why the European Union and the Vatican, for example, condemned the execution. The trial and execution of Saddam Hussein must be seen in a legal and in a political view. Legally, it was a scandal. There are hundreds of pages of proof that the trial was just a charade and had nothing whatsoever to do with a lawful procedure. Now you can say that he was not worth a legal procedure but in a democracy the law must apply to ALL people, you cannot say: this person is not worth the trouble, we are not giving him a fair trial. It's the strength and the achievement of a democracy to treat all people alike. This trial sends out a message to the Iraqui people and beyond that this is the justice they can expect from the superpower USA - the rule of power and victor's justice and not a fair and equal treatment. As a result the fighters of Al Quaeda will feel justified in their fight against the West. In a political view it was totally wrong not to wait until a legal government was established but install a court which was not legitimated but just a puppet of the occupation forces. I think it was a vital mistake to send out the message that the USA wanted Saddam Hussein dead as quickly as possible, no matter what. The most atrocious crimes of Saddam were not even tried in this court ad the Kurds and other victims never had the chance to even see him held accountable for the crimes against them. Therefore, the trial did not add anything to a peaceful development in the country, on the contrary - we see Shiites celebrate while Sunnites are locked into their houses to prevent them from protesting. The civil war in Iraq will be even worse and more people will die. The trial of Saddam Hussein should have been carried out by a united and peaceful Iraq in order to give the country a chance to deal with the past in a way that helps them in the future. |
| brENsKi 31.12.2006 06:11 |
Barbara while i concur with 99% pf your post, the last sentence:- "The trial of Saddam Hussein should have been carried out by a united and peaceful Iraq in order to give the country a chance to deal with the past in a way that helps them in the future. " is the major stumbling block. no matter how far Iraq strives for peace it will be sometime - barring a miracle (maybe resulting from his death) before all parties learn to live together equally and peacefully. So your suggestion is to house/incarcerate him for years - until peace is achieved? by which time his death will mean nothing. Is putting people like Hitler/Saddam/pol Pot/Du Vallier and co behind glass screens for scientists and Psychologists to study, really any kind of answer? One final thought: while the concept of "an eye for an eye" is deemed barbaric and archaic by all but the most ardent Christian (GW Bush). The families and friends of those who perished at Saddam's orders will feel no joy or pleasure in vengeance. It must be accepted that most of them will feel atoned to and reassured that this wretched excuse for a human being will never agin be responsible for such acts of evil. One less power-hungry tyrrant walking the earth is always a step in the right direction. Now, if only we could GW Bush to trial.... |
| .DeaconJohn. 31.12.2006 07:13 |
Apparently there is a full video of the execution on the internet now, due to the wonders of camera phones. |
| thomasquinn 32989 31.12.2006 07:35 |
Music Man: your post clearly shows why I am not willing to debate with you over this; you believe in a system of 'ethics' that is unpleasantly like the 'fire and brimstone' God of Wrath of the Old Testament. Moreover, you deny the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights by agreeing with the death-penalty, and thus I do not consider you civilized. May I also point out that in the USA, no matter what your politicians (as corrupt as all others in the world) say, the death penalty is unconstitutional. Your constitution guarantees the "Right To Life", as it was expressed in the Declaration Of Independence already, and so violates her own laws by executing people. Yamaha: Saddam Hussein should have been sent to The Hague and tried there, as that is the only legal institution for the trying of ousted secular leaders. However, the US refuses this, because they realize full well that if they start recognizing that court, they will also find a great many 'heroes' of theirs tried there as well. In fact, the US has explicitly stated that they will undertake military action against the Netherlands if ever an American is to be tried at the International Court of Justice. Promised land of the free and democratic leader of the world indeed...quasi-totalitarian bully more like! |
| YourValentine 31.12.2006 07:57 |
@ Brenski - you are right, it needs a miracle to bring peace to the Iraq - thanks to those who illegally invaded the country and have no clue how to end this mess. However, the example of the former Yogoslavia has shown that peace can be established if an international effort is made. It's not the optimum but people can live there without being bombed in their cities. There is no such chance for the Iraq because the USA stopped respecting international law and became a ruthless aggressive power. I cannot imagine any country in the area or outside who would volunteer to go there and do the dirty work for the USA. Still, there was no need to rush this trial and put up an illegitimate court in addition to all the injustice done to the Iraq before. Getting rid of Saddam Hussein is not an answer to any problem in the Iraq. |
| Mr.Jingles 31.12.2006 09:33 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: So in short, what you're saying is: be evil to the evil.But Caspar, you used to post death threats against Sarajane. Now, I know that the girl was sort of fucked up in the head, but does that mean that wishing for someone to die is the right thing to do? |
| thomasquinn 32989 31.12.2006 09:44 |
Mr.Jingles wrote:You have serious issues in seeing the difference between extreme annoyance and murdering deposed dictators.<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: So in short, what you're saying is: be evil to the evil.But Caspar, you used to post death threats against Sarajane. Now, I know that the girl was sort of fucked up in the head, but does that mean that wishing for someone to die is the right thing to do? |
| Mr.Jingles 31.12.2006 09:57 |
<font color=green>Bren<font color=orange>ski wrote: One less power-hungry tyrrant walking the earth is always a step in the right direction. Now, if only we could GW Bush to trial.......and Cheney, and Castro, and Bin Laden, and Rumsfeld, and Kim Jong Il, and Olmert, and Chavez, and Hamas and so many fucking political extremists, religious fundamentalists, fascists, and sick power hungry bastards. Too bad that Saddam Hussein is just one of many that deserved to be sent to trial for their crimes. |
| Serry... 31.12.2006 11:03 |
.DeaconJohn. wrote: Apparently there is a full video of the execution on the internet now, due to the wonders of camera phones....And with sound... |
| thomasquinn 32989 31.12.2006 11:07 |
Disgusting. Is that what we call civilization? |
| Carol! the Musical 31.12.2006 12:13 |
Serry Vietinhoff wrote:I clicked on what was suposed to be a video of his last minutes... it's crap. Nothing interesting. :P.DeaconJohn. wrote: Apparently there is a full video of the execution on the internet now, due to the wonders of camera phones....And with sound... |
| deleted user 31.12.2006 12:23 |
I think it's pretty sick to actually download something like that. |
| Queenluv4Life 31.12.2006 12:30 |
<font color=purple>Miss James wrote: I think it's pretty sick to actually download something like that.I agree. i even think its sick to video tape someones death even if its the death of someone who was so bloody and cruel. |
| Serry... 31.12.2006 12:30 |
<font color=purple>Miss James wrote: I think it's pretty sick to actually download something like that.They showed that tape in TV news on one of our TV channels... Sweet New Year's evening... Kids, Santa, hanged Saddam, hohoho! |
| queenrocks! 10902 31.12.2006 12:56 |
Joy to the world Saddam is dead! Now they just have to get Bin Laden and maybe Blair and Bush can finally end this fucking war which has killed millions. They better pay with their lives! |
| its_a_hard_life 26994 31.12.2006 12:58 |
Serry Vietinhoff wrote:LMAO... :D :D :D<font color=purple>Miss James wrote: I think it's pretty sick to actually download something like that.They showed that tape in TV news on one of our TV channels... Sweet New Year's evening... Kids, Santa, hanged Saddam, hohoho! |
| AspiringPhilosophe 31.12.2006 13:50 |
Good general replies, Barb. Although I wouldn't use the Vatican condeming the death of Saddam as a selling point against the death penalty....after all, we are talking about an institution which, until a couple of hundred years ago, sanctioned, ordered and glorified the killing of "others". Hypocrisy in the extreme if ever there was one. |
| AspiringPhilosophe 31.12.2006 13:52 |
However, it is interesting to see that Yamaha, who asked me and TQ what we would have done with Hussein (under the assuption that we couldn't seperate him from GWB and treat the issue fairly) has yet to reply to my answer of what I would have done. |
| sparrow 21754 31.12.2006 14:26 |
Queenrocks! wrote: Joy to the world Saddam is dead! Now they just have to get Bin Laden and maybe Blair and Bush can finally end this fucking war which has killed millions. They better pay with their lives!tahts what i say! |
| yamaha 31.12.2006 15:46 |
I apologize for not responding in a timely matter. I've been working on my car for most of the day. I will be reading through replies and posting later this evening. From the quick scan that I have done, it looks like there are some well thought out point to mull over. Happy new year everyone!! Mike |
| Maz 31.12.2006 18:56 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: May I also point out that in the USA, no matter what your politicians (as corrupt as all others in the world) say, the death penalty is unconstitutional. Your constitution guarantees the "Right To Life", as it was expressed in the Declaration Of Independence already, and so violates her own laws by executing people.Care to elaborate as to where it says that the death penalty is unconstitutional? The Declaration of Independence has bugger all to do with the US Constitution. The US Constitution explicitly states that life, liberty, or property cannot be taken by the government without due process; it says nothing about "right to life." Sounds like your repeating some bunk line from a quasi-intellectual who wanted to get one over on the US. That, or it's more misinterpretation of American History on your part. |
| yamaha 31.12.2006 19:41 |
CMU HistoryGirl wrote: However, it is interesting to see that Yamaha, who asked me and TQ what we would have done with Hussein (under the assuption that we couldn't seperate him from GWB and treat the issue fairly) has yet to reply to my answer of what I would have done.I'm glad you don't wish to let him off easy. I'm not exactly sure about the charges that the US could bring against Saddam in court. He didn't actually break any of our laws considering he never set foot in the country, and covered his ties, if any, to terrorism. But an International war crimes charge along with an Iraqi trial would show a more global perspective on his acions, and would likely have a similar outcome (can't emagine a court system in this would that would not convict). Given the trial that he was privelaged to, I feel that the Iraqi court were just in choosing his sentence. I do understand that his death will likely spur on a few attacks, but I suspect that it will blow over just as other martyr deaths. How is it that a person can shun the idea of a death penalty based on its cruelity, yet favor a ife sentence based on the idea that it would be more of a punishment? To me there are two types of criminals, separated by the ability to be rehabilitated. Some are worth trying to cure so to reintroduce to society, and others who will never be able to overcome the urge to commit crimes. I don't see a reaon to keep the dead weight hanging around. Isn't a life term in solitary a lot like a death sentence which uses natural causes as the method of death. ;-) I'm just diggin' on ya now. Its quite likely that I will not respond to this thread any further. I have said my piece and wish to move on. Especially now since my dinner is ready. Mike |
| I♥The80's 31.12.2006 20:58 |
Serry Vietinhoff wrote:OMG I know! Only on Russian TV xD<font color=purple>Miss James wrote: I think it's pretty sick to actually download something like that.They showed that tape in TV news on one of our TV channels... Sweet New Year's evening... Kids, Santa, hanged Saddam, hohoho! Wait, did you see the WHOLE thing? All my Russian channel showed was how they put the stuff around his neck and were about to hang him......in order to see the actual "hanging", I probably have to pay another $30 xD |
| Smitty 31.12.2006 21:21 |
I have a good idea on why Saddam's death was rushed. Didn't the islamic holy week begin around the time of his execution, at sunrise. They probably rushed his hanging to respect the Islamic people, by not executing him during the holy week. Anyway, just a guess...you can say all you want. I'm glad he's dead though. |
| john bodega 31.12.2006 22:42 |
.DeaconJohn. wrote: Apparently there is a full video of the execution on the internet now, due to the wonders of camera phones.Fucking CNN, thanks to that lot I saw his dead body. Sheesh, it's amazing what a little rope can do to a neck :\ |
| user name 01.01.2007 02:42 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: Music Man: your post clearly shows why I am not willing to debate with you over this; you believe in a system of 'ethics' that is unpleasantly like the 'fire and brimstone' God of Wrath of the Old Testament. Moreover, you deny the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights by agreeing with the death-penalty, and thus I do not consider you civilized. May I also point out that in the USA, no matter what your politicians (as corrupt as all others in the world) say, the death penalty is unconstitutional. Your constitution guarantees the "Right To Life", as it was expressed in the Declaration Of Independence already, and so violates her own laws by executing people.Sorry for the delayed reply, I was busy celebrating the coming of the New Year. Now, perhaps you will be unwilling to argue, but that simply makes it much easier for me to make a fool of your defenseless self. Being unfamiliar with this Bible-talk, I decided to briefly look up that "fire and brimstone" you spoke of. From Wikipedia, I gleaned: "Fire and brimstone is a motif in fundamentalist Christian preaching which uses vivid descriptions of Hell and damnation to encourage the listeners to fear divine wrath and punishment." Let's see, judging from this comparison, it seems that you have no idea what I said. The message of my post was this and only this: intentions are more important than actions. It had nothing to do with crime prevention through threat of punishment. It is generally morally agreed upon that there are situations where people can kill other people, and that there situations where they cannot. Accidents, instability, etc. belong in the former category, whereas sentient willfulness for personal reasons belongs in the latter. Where does justice belong? That is the question. I think it is completely reasonable for it to belong in the former. It is also reasonable for it to belong in the latter. But to say that there is only one option for morally upright people is absurd. Secondly, you think that a prerequisite for being civilized is to blindly agree completely with a document? That's just silly. If only civilization and justice were so black and white. Also, just a moment's research on this document shows that it does not directly address the issue of the death penalty, and that the United Nations' agreements on human rights dictates that the death penalty be reserved for the most serious of crimes. This is obviously another controversial topic that you somehow seem to think is open and shut. If I had to give a personal opinion, I would not advocate the death penalty, but your responses to me are utterly weak at best, so I will continue to argue against you until I am convinced that you are not a complete idiot who gets his political views from bathroom stalls. I'm not convinced yet. 1) The Declaration of Independence is not a source of law in the United States of America. 2) You apparently are vastly uneducated on the United States Constitution. I will leave it up to you to educate yourself. Hint: There is no guaranteed right to life. Good night sir, and feel free to provide me with a cogent argument this time that does not attack my civility, or that states that I am not worth arguing with. The ball's in your court now. And you're down by a set. Or free throw. Or whatever sporting scoring system that phrase alludes to. |
| Winter Land Man 01.01.2007 03:39 |
Didn't members of Saddam's family, including him rape other members of his family, and women? Anyway, there's a difference between a murderer and a tyrant. |
| Serry... 01.01.2007 04:33 |
.*.Messenger Of Leah.*. wrote: Didn't members of Saddam's family, including him rape other members of his family, and women?Proved in the court? |
| YourValentine 01.01.2007 06:37 |
My point was more that there was no fair trial whereas the death penalty issue is another topic. It's true what you say about the Vatican but if history disqualifies them to speak out against human rights violations, not many of us could. For example my own country was ruled by the worst killers only 62 years ago and was responsible for the death of 20 million people. Still, I think I have the right to speak out against injustice and inhumanity. Human Rights and their violation are much more an issue in schools in my country than in neighbour countries who do not have such a history. However, the fact that the Vatican spoke out against the illegal occupation of the Iraq and spoke out against the inhumane punishment was helpful for the human rights supporters although it did not stop the occupation or the unfair trial. As to the question if it is not more humane to kill a convicted murderer instead of jailiing him for life time - the death penalty is not a matter of practicality, it's a matter of justice. Societies who have the death penalty are often religious states (all Islamistic countries have it) or dictatorships (China, North Korea etc). In most democraties the state simply does not have the right to take the life of a citizen, no matter what. If life is not protected under all circumstances there will be abuse of that right. As to the legality of the death penalty in the USA, I think it's quite controversial. Some Supreme Court rulings at least abolished the killing of minors and mentally disabled as unconstitutional and currently lethal injectionw were outruled in California as unconstitutional because they violate the 8th amendmend (unusual and cruel punsihment) |
| Mr.Jingles 01.01.2007 17:19 |
CMU HistoryGirl wrote: Good general replies, Barb. Although I wouldn't use the Vatican condeming the death of Saddam as a selling point against the death penalty....after all, we are talking about an institution which, until a couple of hundred years ago, sanctioned, ordered and glorified the killing of "others". Hypocrisy in the extreme if ever there was one.I think certain things are better left on the past. Imagine if black people and indians decided to uprise to make white people pay for all the crimes commited against them during the 1800s? |
| Mr.Jingles 01.01.2007 19:25 |
I just saw the actual video with the complete footage of Saddam Hussein's execution. I was expecting Ashton Kutcher to come out at any moment and say: - YO, SADDAM YOU JUST GOT PUNK'D!! Looks like that didn't happen. |
| user name 01.01.2007 21:53 |
Mr.Jingles wrote:I wholeheartedly agree with this, but it's amazing how many people do not grasp the simple concept that the past is the past. It is especially annoying when anyone who might be associated with the event in question is dead.CMU HistoryGirl wrote: Good general replies, Barb. Although I wouldn't use the Vatican condeming the death of Saddam as a selling point against the death penalty....after all, we are talking about an institution which, until a couple of hundred years ago, sanctioned, ordered and glorified the killing of "others". Hypocrisy in the extreme if ever there was one.I think certain things are better left on the past. Imagine if black people and indians decided to uprise to make white people pay for all the crimes commited against them during the 1800s? "Catholics are hypocrites because of the Crusades," "Americans are hypocrites because of the deal with the Native Americans/slavery/etc.," and the list goes on and on. Idiots. On a side note, it seems my previous post has yet to be responded to... |
| AspiringPhilosophe 01.01.2007 22:45 |
First of all, I agree that the past is the past. But it does need to be remembered. Yes, people need to speak out against crimes against humanity, but most of us are guilty by association, so everyone is a hypocrite in the strict sense of the word. However, what needs to be remembered (and guarded against) is that fact that there are certain frames of mind and certain institutions that may not always be bad in and of themselves, but are more prone to having their message hijacked and used for ill purposes. Religion, like it or not, is one of those areas. Nationalism is another. Anything that breeds or commands this type of blind loyalty and obidience is always in danger of bringing these types of crimes back into the world; these are the things (religion and nationalism in my example) that need to be watched carefully, and if neccessary knocked down off of their high horses, because more damage might ensue. So I don't neccessarily think Catholics are hypocrites because of the Crusades, and I don't neccessarily think that the US is hypocritical because of slavery/westward expansion; bottom line we are all hypocrites anyway. But I think that someone needs to remember that these institutions are capable of these kinds of atrocities, and needs to sound the alarm if signs point to a return to that direction. Even though Yamaha won't respond to this thread again, no prob on the dig :-). What I sugguested may have been cruel, but at least it keeps others alive, which was my overall point. His death leads to more deaths, my way would have reduced the innocents lost to violence because of his martyrs death. Even one innocent life saved is well worth the price. |
| Mr.Jingles 01.01.2007 23:09 |
As long as there's an apology taking responsibilities for the mistakes made, I think it's definitely a must to just move on. |
| user name 02.01.2007 01:30 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: As long as there's an apology taking responsibilities for the mistakes made, I think it's definitely a must to just move on.The problem is that people always ask the wrong people to apologize. Nobody under the age of 60 should apologize or attempt to reconcile anything due to the Holocaust. Nobody under the age of 142 should apologize or pay reparations for slavery. Nobody under the age of 200 should apologize for driving out the Indians. Nobody under the age of 700 years old should apologize for the Crusades. Despite all these things...people still seem to think an apology is due. And then you have people apologizing for George W. Bush when the only people who should apologize are A) George W. Bush, and B) anyone who voted for him. |
| Serry... 02.01.2007 02:52 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: The problem is that people always ask the wrong people to apologize. Nobody under the age of 60 should apologize or attempt to reconcile anything due to the Holocaust. Nobody under the age of 142 should apologize or pay reparations for slavery. Nobody under the age of 200 should apologize for driving out the Indians. Nobody under the age of 700 years old should apologize for the Crusades. Despite all these things...people still seem to think an apology is due. And then you have people apologizing for George W. Bush when the only people who should apologize are A) George W. Bush, and B) anyone who voted for him.You - Americans - always forget about that (what you just wrote) then it comes to discussion about USSR and communism... I personally responce on QZ for Stalin, Lenin, Marx, Afghanistan, Chechnya, political immigrants, Chernobyl... |
| willem-jan 8923 02.01.2007 07:37 |
link This map shows it all. Blue = civilized, red = 100 years behind. Somehow the US government is no better than al those countries they are trying to "save". |
| thomasquinn 32989 02.01.2007 08:53 |
willem-jan wrote: link This map shows it all. Blue = civilized, red = 100 years behind. Somehow the US government is no better than al those countries they are trying to "save".Right on the money. |
| Raf 02.01.2007 09:32 |
<font color=660066>Maverick<h6>4711 wrote:On the TV they showed part of it. They showed people making fun of Saddam when he already had the string around his neck, but then they cut it.Serry Vietinhoff wrote:I clicked on what was suposed to be a video of his last minutes... it's crap. Nothing interesting. :P.DeaconJohn. wrote: Apparently there is a full video of the execution on the internet now, due to the wonders of camera phones....And with sound... Yesterday I got the full video, though. You're right, not very interesting... But still, you can see his dead face. |
| thomasquinn 32989 02.01.2007 09:41 |
You are a very sick and deranged person, you know? |
| magicalfreddiemercury 02.01.2007 09:44 |
willem-jan wrote: link This map shows it all. Blue = civilized, red = 100 years behind. Somehow the US government is no better than al those countries they are trying to "save".Just to point out (a comparitively small point) - not all states in the USA have the death penalty. |
| thomasquinn 32989 02.01.2007 10:23 |
magicalfreddiemercury wrote:This map lists per country, not per province. The federal government and a majority of states have the death penalty. Plenty of reason to list it.willem-jan wrote: link This map shows it all. Blue = civilized, red = 100 years behind. Somehow the US government is no better than al those countries they are trying to "save".Just to point out (a comparitively small point) - not all states in the USA have the death penalty. |
| magicalfreddiemercury 02.01.2007 10:57 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: This map lists per country, not per province. The federal government and a majority of states have the death penalty. Plenty of reason to list it.Correct, however, I felt the need to point out that not all the states have the death penalty. |
| Mr.Jingles 02.01.2007 11:19 |
<b><font color = "crimson"> ThomasQuinn wrote: You are a very sick and deranged person, you know?We are all sick deranged people. That's why we come regularly to this message board. |
| Maz 02.01.2007 12:02 |
<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Nobody under the age of 200 should apologize for driving out the Indians.American Indian land has been taken well into the 20th century (google "Indian allotment" and "Indian termination" for a general idea), while Indian communities today continue to fight in court over fishing and hunting rights. Indians did not disappear as an issue 200 years ago. |
| user name 02.01.2007 14:16 |
Zeni wrote:Ah, then scratch that one from the list...but add everything that Serry mentioned.<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Nobody under the age of 200 should apologize for driving out the Indians.American Indian land has been taken well into the 20th century (google "Indian allotment" and "Indian termination" for a general idea), while Indian communities today continue to fight in court over fishing and hunting rights. Indians did not disappear as an issue 200 years ago. |
| Donna13 02.01.2007 15:38 |
Zebonka12: "Well I've made a video tribute to the man" link I didn't realize this was what it was until I read the comment by cloudedsky and your disclaimer! Reminds me of when I thought you had really shot up that car in "Dead on Arrival". Before I realized what this was, I only noticed a slight (so I thought) technical problem - I assumed something had happened during the upload with the sound synchronization in certain parts. Ha! |
| Mr.Jingles 02.01.2007 15:55 |
Zeni wrote:There's no complete injustice for the indians.<b><font color=666600>Music Man wrote: Nobody under the age of 200 should apologize for driving out the Indians.American Indian land has been taken well into the 20th century (google "Indian allotment" and "Indian termination" for a general idea), while Indian communities today continue to fight in court over fishing and hunting rights. Indians did not disappear as an issue 200 years ago. These days they own casinos, and while nothing will bring them back their land at least they're taking money away from dumb people. |
