Thread: Attn: Sadaam is dead

Originally Posted by Curiosity

He's hiding out with Elvis. I think the Saddam hanging was a fake too. It's time for the conspiracy theories to come out! LOL

So.... he's in Las Vegas?

Rafster

Pol Pot killed 1.7 million Cambodians, died under house arrest at age 72. Stalin killed around 4 million people, died in his bed. My point is that many people have done much worse and have been ignored. Many wartorn African countries are approaching death tolls in the millions. Sadam is definately not a nice man. Ranks up there with Castro and a few others. Not someone who you invite to tea, but still a person. I think that he should have gotten the death penalty, but not when he did.

His trial was rushed, and biased. It was held in a country occupied by foreign militia and a hell of a lot of pressure by various governments. It should have been held in a neutral place, or in a neutral time.

Why him? Why single out somebody like that? I am not a Saddam lover, but I do think that he was treated unfairly. He had his own country! It is like the "if you live under my house, you play by my rules even if I am a crazy bastard. Don't like it leave" kind of attitude. If I go make a country I should be able to do whatever the hell I want to do. And if I kill innoccent people as Saddam did, I would be put on a fair trial and more than likely put to death.

Basically right conclusion, wrong time and execution thereof (pun slightly intended ).

Originally Posted by 2k1Toaster

Pol Pot killed 1.7 million Cambodians, died under house arrest at age 72. Stalin killed around 4 million people, died in his bed. My point is that many people have done much worse and have been ignored. Many wartorn African countries are approaching death tolls in the millions. Sadam is definately not a nice man. Ranks up there with Castro and a few others. Not someone who you invite to tea, but still a person. I think that he should have gotten the death penalty, but not when he did.

His trial was rushed, and biased. It was held in a country occupied by foreign militia and a hell of a lot of pressure by various governments. It should have been held in a neutral place, or in a neutral time.

Why him? Why single out somebody like that? I am not a Saddam lover, but I do think that he was treated unfairly. He had his own country! It is like the "if you live under my house, you play by my rules even if I am a crazy bastard. Don't like it leave" kind of attitude. If I go make a country I should be able to do whatever the hell I want to do. And if I kill innoccent people as Saddam did, I would be put on a fair trial and more than likely put to death.

Basically right conclusion, wrong time and execution thereof (pun slightly intended ).

So... A rushed trial for someone who since late 80's has been cousing the US a lot of problems and not only that, but killing his own people, raping them, their familes, torturing them, etc....?

I dunno man.... I think the faster we can get rid of these monsters the better the world will be....

Rafster

Originally Posted by Curiosity

Yeah, I think the U.S. is much safer now that he can't attack us again. It only cost us a few hundred billion. It cost them a rope. They should thank us with a lot of oil or something.

HAHAHA!!!

Sooooo true!!! It's still soooo funny that people think that we're there for oil.... Gas prices (at least in California) have doubled since we've gone to war... don't you think that since we basically have a little bit of say in the way they do things there, we would be taking some oil back home with us? Notice, we haven't asked them for anything in return other than to become a democracy and to stop supporting terror!

Rafster

But of course you know that there is no evidence that Iraq was a substantial supporter of terrorist activities against the U.S.? I'm no Iraq expert, but it appears that the invasion was an attempt to remove what was thought by the administration to be a destabilizing influence in the Middle East with the belief that a democracy would bloom there.

As for whether we're there for the oil or not, while we're not seizing the oil fields in the long term, I think the general idea is that peace and prosperity in oil rich regions breed long term stability in the U.S. However half-cooked the fantasy of a democratic Middle East may be, there is some evidence that this certainly influenced the decision (keep thinking: "What a legacy, Mr. President!")

2K1, thanks for clearing it up. I think your points on exactly what criteria we use to decide that an invasion is warranted are good ones, my reaction was to the presidential comparison. Like/hate him, I think he's doing what he believes is the right thing. I think it is imminently possible that for all the right reasons he has done exactly the wrong thing. History will be the judge, eventually.

I'm not at all for Saddam nor his regime, and I'm well aware fo the horrors he's caused.

From where I'm sitting however, this was no execution. This was murder.

An execution is the "civilized" way of giving the ultimate punishment. Civilized meaning that person, no matter what they've done, is given a fair trial, and then the time to say their prayers (whatever their beleif).

Whether it was a fair trial or not, is someone else's call, but from what I saw in that execution, he was not even allowed to finish his prayers. Shame on them.