Saddam Hussein's execution: V

econ21's thread got lost in a glitch with the database, so I have deleted that attempt and have his permission to re-post what he wrote.

Please let's keep this discussion civil as he requests.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

We've had three locked threads connected to Saddam's execution. But it seems sad if the Backroom can't discuss a current event as salient as this, so let's try a fourth time to get a thread that does not need to be locked.

I want to have a go with a fourth thread, because the execution has created a strong, negative, feeling in me that I don't think has been articulated so far.

When I first realised that Saddam was likely to be executed - long ago, at the start of his trial - I had mixed feelings. I could see the Nuremburg analogy and I reviled the man. But confronting the reality has hardened my view against it. Seeing an old man with a noose around his neck, surrounded by hooded executioners, is a disturbing image. It reminds me of those awful "snuff" videos of the terrorists and their soon to be beheaded orange clothed prisoners. It invokes pity and sadness because it shows a man about to die. And it angers me because my government (the UK) has been complicit in what led up to it and because it lowers "our side" to a level perilously close to that of Saddam and the jihadi terrorists. I would like to say that we don't kill people in cold blood, that we don't torture, that we don't deprive people of liberty for years without trial. But I can't.

I am against capital punishment and in essence, the issue of capital punishment is almost all this case boils down to. But, like most red blooded people, I can momentarily waiver in my opposition to the death penalty when faced with a specific heinous crime or monstrous criminal. Yet, somehow, Saddam's case just reinforced my opposition to any executions.

This is despite my firm belief that Saddam was a gangster and a particularly murderous one. And I have no reasonable doubt that he committed the crime for which he was executed, as well as many more.

But there is just something repellant in coldly taking a helpless man's life. If in war, an enemy soldier is pointing a gun at you, I would have no hesitation in saying kill him. I am not a pacifist. But to take a man's life when there is a simple non-violent alternative (life imprisonment) just seems wrong. I know I can't persuade anyone of that view - it's axiomatic; you either share it or you do not. A life has an instrinsic value, whether it's that of an old mass murderer in a cell, or a newborn baby in Iraq. Taking it unnecessarily seems disrespectful of humanity, malign and I want to say devoid of love, to use the language probably derived my Christian upbringing.

I am generally suspicious of "slippery slope" arguments, but they do seem to apply here. Once you start killing people in cold blood, it becomes easier to contemplate launching a missile into an Al Jahazeera office because you don't like their message, taking a few captured insurgents round the back to be summarily executed or poisoning a dissident who is agitating against you. Executions seem to entail a state sponsored level of brutality that weaken our sensibilities and defenses against lethal abuses of state power.

Will there be an instrumental benefit in having taken Saddam's life? To be honest, I don't really care. That's not the point. You could make arguments either way, although it does not seem auspicious (some Iraqi Sunnis apparently viewing the execution as a declaration of war).

Maybe we can't discuss this issue in a civilised manner. Maybe the battlelines are too clearly drawn. It's too much a case of "one for our side!" and "gotcha!". American soldiers are being killed every week in Iraq and Saddam, probably wrongly, is identified as the figurehead of the killers. (If it were OBL instead of Saddam on the gallows, I might momentarily waiver again. But after this experience, I doubt it.) But let's try to discuss it without flames or cheap shots.

---

:bow:

I like to put it like this:

If two men ride down a street and kill an 8 year old child for no reason, should they get the death penalty?

So if a dictator gasses and kills an entire village because of one assasination attempt, should he be put to death? Remember, these were unarmed civilians, women and children too.

YAY! It's about time!
No offence to any terrorists here, but I'm really glad this happened. :D

I have a link to the real thing (not the edited one I put in the video thread)


If anyone wants to see it pm me. It'd be pretty terrifying to be in his shoes. It's bad enough they were about to hang him but it seemed like they were chanting at him while doing it.

I don't think they should have leaked it but...if it's out there I figured I might as well watch it.

I have mixed feelings similar (though not identical) to econ21's with capital punishment in general.

But regarding Mr. Hussein: it's not my country, or my court system, or my legislature - so I am entitled to no opinion, in my opinion; rather like I view Texas executions.

That said, the taunting by masked executioners, seems unprofessional in the extreme to these Western eyes.

Saw it. Thanks SFTS.

Does professionalism come into it at all? Not in my view. The entire trial itself
was a mockery, and the process [taunting included or not] itself was enough to
add significantly to the hatred felt across that part of the world.

Yeap, it was a great moment of justice. A court where judges were removed, lawyers killed… And the execution by hooded executioners was just the mirror of the trial. Were they scared or ashamed to participate? Were they obliged or did they volunteer? It wasn’t Nuremberg… It wasn’t even The Hague, the political court. It was a revolutionary trial without the St Just as prosecutor and his sentences (no freedom for the enemies of freedom…). It was a farce where nothing was explained, and brought to the light. Saddam was guilty, and was sentenced and executed for a crime he did commit. But when will we learn about Hallabjah, the war against Iran, the slaughter of the Arab of the swamp? He was executed for the lesser crime, and Chirac, Rumsfeld and all the politicians who sold him weapons and went to shake his hands can now breathe freely. They won’t have to answer difficult questions, even if the chances were even narrower than for Milocevic’s trial…
Well done, and mission accomplished…:clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KukriKhan

I have mixed feelings similar (though not identical) to econ21's with capital punishment in general.

But regarding Mr. Hussein: it's not my country, or my court system, or my legislature - so I am entitled to no opinion, in my opinion; rather like I view Texas executions.

That said, the taunting by masked executioners, seems unprofessional in the extreme to these Western eyes.

---

The concerns I have from the apparent taunting and the release of the unofficial recording are twofold:

First, the taunts seem to be very sectarian as the name of Moqtadr al-Sadr was prominent. This further enhances the view that this was a simple revenge by the Shia dominated government rather than a judicial execution. Sunnis were already going to be alienated by the sentence, this appears to be extra salt in the sectarian wound. And if al-Sadr is associated with Saddam's execution, this builds his power base evn more among the Shia. (Remeber that this fellow is hardly supportive of the occupation, US influence or indeed the current government).

Second, Saddam actually came off as dignified and somewhat courageous, challenging his tormentors and belying the official government propaganda that he went to his death a cowed and frightened man.

The latter is probably as irrelevant in the long run as his execution, as the insurgency has moved a long way past being the remnants of the old order. The former, sectarian impact will just deepen divisions.

If the execution had to happen (and everyone knows my views, so I'll not go there) it should have been controlled much more professionally. I can fully understand why the US did not want to be involved, but the tawdry spectacle will not have helped their cause.

I agree that it came across as very unprofessional and primitive. This is exactly how an execution should not be done.

I would have been more satisified with a hospital setting, even for the gallows. White walls, brightly lit, professional uniforms, and total silence except for the presence and speech of a judge or supervisor. The execution should have been delayed by the slightest hint of unprofessionalism.

This only makes the process appear corrupt. :no:

I am very dissapointed.

So they was Chanting as him when he was getting Excuted? No Big Deal. He Derserved it. If you was him, would you like it? mabye not, but even still.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888

So they was Chanting as him when he was getting Excuted? No Big Deal. He Derserved it. If you was him, would you like it? mabye not, but even still.

---

You have a disturbingly cheap view of the dignity of human life. I find it interesting that even Divinus Arma, one of the posters I would expect to be strongly in favour of the execution (as it seems you are DA), came out criticising the actual process of execution.

This cheer squad of he deserved it who cares let him die without any care for dignity seems to be reducing the act of taking another persons life to mere comedy or entertainment. I have never had to take anothers life, something for which I am thankful, but I have talked to those who have. It has impacted all of them profoundly and they all wish that they never had to do it. Even at executions the roles are split, no one person can fully say I killed the prisoner, no matter how heinous they are, to avoid this enormity.

I wonder Warman, have you ever taken someones life, or is it all just a meld between entertainment and news for you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Productivity

You have a disturbingly cheap view of the dignity of human life. I find it interesting that even Divinus Arma, one of the posters I would expect to be strongly in favour of the execution (as it seems you are DA), came out criticising the actual process of execution.

This cheer squad of he deserved it who cares let him die without any care for dignity seems to be reducing the act of taking another persons life to mere comedy or entertainment. I have never had to take anothers life, something for which I am thankful, but I have talked to those who have. It has impacted all of them profoundly and they all wish that they never had to do it. Even at executions the roles are split, no one person can fully say I killed the prisoner, no matter how heinous they are, to avoid this enormity.

I wonder Warman, have you ever taken someones life, or is it all just a meld between entertainment and news for you?

---

Well, if you were chosen to hang the man who was a tyrant of your country and killed your friends/family, wouldn't you be happy to see him gone?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patriarch of Constantinople

Well, if you were chosen to hang the man who was a tyrant of your country and killed your friends/family, wouldn't you be happy to see him gone?

---

Would I be happy to see him gone? I guess so, it's a position I never want to be in, but yes, I would be glad to see him gone, in the sense that he can no longer harm my family/country. I'd define gone as the point at which he was captured by the US though, from there he couldn't harm anyone. From there I would expect due process and life imprisonment. Not a farce of a trial and a bloodthirsty act of revenge.

Would I be happy to see him gone in that he is dead? Ask yourself this. How has the world changed for his lack of life. Is it safer? Is it better? I'd argue no to both of these, his death changed nothing in practice. The one thing that it did change in practice, was that those that were owed a process for the crimes comitted against them have now been robbed of that chance.

So what did we gain from having a dead Saddam as opposed to a live Saddam. Tell me that and then I'll reconsider how I'd feel.

Quote:

---

So they was Chanting as him when he was getting Excuted? No Big Deal.

---

No big deal huh ?:dizzy2:
Its a very big deal warmann , but I don't expect you can comprehend that since it appears that actions that will be used to increase sectarian conflict do not seem to register on your scope of things that will be used to increase sectarian conflict .:no:

Quote:

---

If you was him, would you like it? mabye not, but even still.

---

Ah I see , well the funny thing is that it isn't really about if Saddam would have liked the taunts , its whether the nuts with guns get yet another reason to go crazy killing more people .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Productivity

You have a disturbingly cheap view of the dignity of human life. I find it interesting that even Divinus Arma, one of the posters I would expect to be strongly in favour of the execution (as it seems you are DA), came out criticising the actual process of execution.

This cheer squad of he deserved it who cares let him die without any care for dignity seems to be reducing the act of taking another persons life to mere comedy or entertainment. I have never had to take anothers life, something for which I am thankful, but I have talked to those who have. It has impacted all of them profoundly and they all wish that they never had to do it. Even at executions the roles are split, no one person can fully say I killed the prisoner, no matter how heinous they are, to avoid this enormity.

I wonder Warman, have you ever taken someones life, or is it all just a meld between entertainment and news for you?

---

Oh Wait Productivity, Please go tell that to everyone who had family and/or friends murder by him. He Killed Thousands apon Thousands of People for no apprant reason, and he derserved what he recived, and I don't want any person to come to me and say "Well I am a Devout Relgiolius Person and think he should have got life" or "I'm just a normal person and think he should have got life", yet a "decent" executions.


And I wonder, have you ever taken someone's life, or is it entertainment and news for you?

Because No, I haven't. Mabye you have, but I haven't.Yes it is Entertainment. Why? He Killed people for no reason, and got what he did to Many people, he got himself executed. Would I kill Someone? Hell Yes I would, and don't argue with me about it. Self-Defense wise I will, but that the ONLY time I will. If someone is threating me and/or my family/friends, then I will have no choice in taking out my gun and settling it with a sad,but true, bullet to the head in Self-Defense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888

Oh Wait Productivity, Please go tell that to everyone who had family and/or friends murder by him. He Killed Thousands apon Thousands of People for no apprant reason, and he derserved what he recived, and I don't want any person to come to me and say "Well I am a Devout Relgiolius Person and think he should have got life" or "I'm just a normal person and think he should have got life", yet a "decent" executions.


And I wonder, have you ever taken someone's life, or is it entertainment and news for you?

Because No, I haven't. Mabye you have, but I haven't.Yes it is Entertainment. Why? He Killed people for no reason, and got what he did to Many people, he got himself executed. Would I kill Someone? Hell Yes I would, and don't argue with me about it. Self-Defense wise I will, but that the ONLY time I will. If someone is threating me and/or my family/friends, then I will have no choice in taking out my gun and settling it with a sad,but true, bullet to the head in Self-Defense.

---

Agreed.

If someone killed your family for no reason, wouldn't you want revenge?

Better he had been shot in his hidey-hole. The farcical trial and (essentially) public execution does little to legitimise the Iraqi government at home and less to dispel its image as a puppet state (if we can even call it that) abroad.

Why some of you insist on viewing the whole sorry episode on the net is beyond me. It seems rather ghoulish and distinctly uncivilised. When the Taliban publically executed people in a football ground it was regarded as a mark of their barbarism.

I also fail to see why so many Americans regard Saddam as their personal enemy.

Edit:

If in truth the footage of the execution does indeed strengthen the cause of one of the warlords looking for power when the allies withdraw then it has truely been a waste of time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888

Because No, I haven't. Mabye you have, but I haven't.

---

I've allready answered that, I have never killed someone and hope that I never have to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888

Yes it is Entertainment.

---

...

You have absolutely no stake in this as far as I can tell, so no prime motive of revenge to justify this. You view watching someone die as entertainment? I don't think I can actually communicate with you. I'm more in touch with Jupiter than I am with someone who would view watching an execution as entertainment.

I was going to respond further, but I'm still struggling to comprehend that you view an execution as entertainment. I don't think my mind can function in the same way as yours can to be honest.

If the US is indeed looking towards the 80% solution for Iraq, then a live Saddam would have been more useful than a dead one. Kept alive but secure, we could make the implicit threat that we'll give up on the mission and reinstall him if the Shi'ites and Kurds got uppity. A dead Saddam is of no use to us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slyspy

Better he had been shot in his hidey-hole. The farcical trial and (essentially) public execution does little to legitimise the Iraqi government at home and less to dispel its image as a puppet state (if we can even call it that) abroad.

Why some of you insist on viewing the whole sorry episode on the net is beyond me. It seems rather ghoulish and distinctly uncivilised. When the Taliban publically executed people in a football ground it was regarded as a mark of their barbarism.

I also fail to see why so many Americans regard Saddam as their personal enemy.

Edit:

If in truth the footage of the execution does indeed strengthen the cause of one of the warlords looking for power when the allies withdraw then it has truely been a waste of time.

---

Perhaps the footage was to serve as some measure of validation for them that this entire venture in Iraq wasn't merely a waste of lives securing US interests: over-simplification, although it is there, displayed as yet another banner, the "bad guy" is dead, and as was said, mission accomplished. Only the image is shattered, for those who strangely seem to have expected this shambolic [indeed, corrupt] affair to be sanitised for their viewing. It appears, simply because it is, nothing more than victor's justice hastily carried out. Much like Ceauşescu, only the murderers in this case will be viewed as working for a puppet regime, rather than a revolutionary force which is essentially free from external control.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Productivity

I've allready answered that, I have never killed someone and hope that I never have to.



...

You have absolutely no stake in this as far as I can tell, so no prime motive of revenge to justify this. You view watching someone die as entertainment? I don't think I can actually communicate with you. I'm more in touch with Jupiter than I am with someone who would view watching an execution as entertainment.

I was going to respond further, but I'm still struggling to comprehend that you view an execution as entertainment. I don't think my mind can function in the same way as yours can to be honest.

---

So you won't debate with someone because they don't have the same view as you? Niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patriarch of Constantinople

So you won't debate with someone because they don't have the same view as you? Niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiice.

---

I'm happy to debate other views, but there comes a point at which there is no common ground and nothing left to debate. There can never be any understanding and so nothing can be gained from the debate. I feel that point has been reached here...

Quite aside from the death penalty, which I believe to be wrong and doubly so in the case of former heads of state, the manner in which this one was performed repels me. It is not the exact manner in which the execution took place but the fact that it was filmed and used to make some kind of political statement: this approach treats his death as a milestone, as something to be proud of, and this is not a view I can agree with. It is the same callous disregard for the value of life displayed under Saddam's own rule and it is not something I'd have though the new government or the US government would want to associate itself with.

And the more recent footage containing taunts directed at Saddam does more damage than good. For a trial that could have been a defining legal precedent, the conclusion underlined exactly what the rest of the trial was: a legal shambles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patriarch of Constantinople

So you won't debate with someone because they don't have the same view as you? Niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiice.

---

Let's face it, he wasn't exactly contributing useful reasonings to the debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patriarch of Constantinople

So you won't debate with someone because they don't have the same view as you? Niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiice.

---

I believe that Productivity has recognised that BHCKingWarman and he are unlikely to develop the debate constructively because of their very differing perspective.

To withdraw before setting up an emotionally charged confrontation is not only very mature and wise, it is much appreciated by those of us who might have had to clear up the pieces.

:bow:

Quote:

---

I'm happy to debate other views, but there comes a point at which there is no common ground and nothing left to debate. There can never be any understanding and so nothing can be gained from the debate. I feel that point has been reached here...

---

Hmmmmmm.......

Quote:

---

Let's face it, he wasn't exactly contributing useful reasonings to the debate.

---

yesssss ....
OK I shall take up on Warmans "it was entertaining viewing" reasoning .
Don't you guys find it exceptionally entertaining that at the execution of this person who was wanted dead or alive by the US in part for killing Iraqi people of different views to ensure his position , that members of the audience were chanting the name of someone who just happens to be wanted dead or alive by the US , in part for killing Iraqi people of different views to ensure his position .
So you must admit warman was actually right on the nail with his reasoning about it being entertaining . :2thumbsup:
Unless of course he meant something else entirely ~;)

I would prefer the end of the death penalty. Though not the barbarism some claim, the death penalty rarely invokes the angels of our better natures. In this case, I think an aging and incarcerated Saddam -- well treated but marginalized -- might have been the more telling image.

Nevertheless, I also disagree with the earlier comment about the death penalty being wrong "doubly so for national leaders." [paraphrase not quote] Extant power/legal/cultural systems already make it too easy for such leaders to function outside the boundaries of their own legal systems. This tendency should NOT be encouraged. Our leaders cannot and should not be aided in the ability to view/hold themselves as above the law -- it's a byproduct of their power enough already and we should not formalize it.

Public executions have often -- always? -- carried with them a sad comment on humanity's willingness to view them as entertainment. Saddam's was no exception. DA's model would have been better, but human-kind rarely kills its own in such a fashion.

The point is that reveling in his death in any manner should be abhorent. Even if you felt his crimes warranted not only incarceration but death, that death should have been meted out in the same fashion that one would execute a dog gone rabid. It's a menace so you kill it quickly and cleanly and then remove the mess. Perhaps a bit of quiet satisfaction for doing a job professionally that had to be done, but surely no cause for celebration. Celebrating such a thing speaks ill of the celebrant -- Saddam has already gone on to whatever reward awaits him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Productivity

I've allready answered that, I have never killed someone and hope that I never have to.



...

You have absolutely no stake in this as far as I can tell, so no prime motive of revenge to justify this. You view watching someone die as entertainment? I don't think I can actually communicate with you. I'm more in touch with Jupiter than I am with someone who would view watching an execution as entertainment.

I was going to respond further, but I'm still struggling to comprehend that you view an execution as entertainment. I don't think my mind can function in the same way as yours can to be honest.

---

Then If you can't Debate with me, and I can't debate with you, then lets not say anything else. Your views in this post made no sense to me.


and Yes I was. I was putting my own Views up here. If you don't like it, then don't post here in the Backroom and don't debate with me. Plain and Simple people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by {BHC}KingWarman888

Then If you can't Debate with me, and I can't debate with you, then lets not say anything else. Your views in this post made no sense to me.

and Yes I was. I was putting my own Views up here. If you don't like it, then don't post here in the Backroom and don't debate with me. Plain and Simple people.

---

You are both entitled to your views, and Productivity is perfectly entitled to both post in, and withdraw from debate as he sees fit.

Please accept his decision and let's move on.

Quote:

---

Your views in this post made no sense to me.

---

Do I see a vessel that has boiled water too often over an open fire there ?:yes: :laugh4:
So making sense , great idea . So an earlier post

Quote:

---

Please go tell that to everyone who had family and/or friends murder by him.

---

Well a quick view of any in depth news would show that that makes no sense . Once again Warman you have decided to champion the cause of the victims relatives without bothering with what they themselves have to say , little things like being denied justice and feeling cheated .

Quote:

---

He Killed Thousands apon Thousands of People for no apprant reason

---

That also makes no sense either , he started killing before he was in power ,he had reasons . The day when he siezed power he broadcast footage of people being dragged from the hall to be killed , he had reasons .
When he gassed the Kurds he had reasons . When he did the killings for which he was executed he had reasons .

So clearly plainly and simply , you make no sense .:shrug:

BTW was I right in interpreting your "entertainment" viewpoint or was you meaning something else entirely ?:laugh4:

I agree with the principal that a brutal dictator such as Saddam Hussein should be executed for his crimes, just as I support the principal of capital punishment that a murderer should be executed. However, as we all know, there is often a great difference between theory and practice.
The truth of the matter is that Hussein's execution will do little to improve matters in Iraq, especially compounded by the amateurish conduct of the judiciray system in Iraq vis a vis his execution, though I suppose its nascent state can excuse it somewhat. The Sunni rebels and Baa'thists will gain a martyr and another focal point for the continuation of their struggle. Though the Shiites will be relieved that their former tormentor is dead and buried, the wound between them and the Sunnis will be deepened even further. All in all, this execution can only worsen the situation.
For once, I do agree that Saddam Hussein should have been imprisonned in a kind of Devil's Island far from Iraq, where he could have died from some "illness" some years later. I say this not because I believe that his "dignity" should not be violated, as I believe someone should be treated according to their actions, not according to the fact that he was a human, but rather because practically speaking, this would have been the ideal solution. He would have been unable to make any broadcasts about continuing the fight and soon he would become forgotten and irrelevant, and no longer a man to be feared.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patriarch of Constantinople

If someone killed your family for no reason, wouldn't you want revenge?

---

Of course. And revenge provokes retribution, which leads to new revenge, causing a cycle of bloodshed that disrupts all public life. That is why Justice and the rule of Law were instituted; they are means to settle disputes in the interest of society, not to exact revenge on behalf of a wronged individual. It is disappointing to see how many people lack this basic notion of the concept of Justice.

Apart from my opposition to the death penalty on principal grounds, I deplore the whole process leading to Saddam's execution because it had fatal shortcomings. The proceedings were constantly disrupted by murders, political appointments and other outside interventions such as the dismissal of many of the defendant's witnesses.

I particularly deplore the fact that Saddam was condemned to death on the grounds of a minor charge. Instead, he should have stood trial for his major crimes, i.e. the war against Iran and the gassing of citizens in the Anfal campaign. The trial never got around to those charges because the crimes involved too many great powers -- those who armed and supported Saddam in the 1980-1988 war against Iran (Soviet Union, US, China, Great Britain, France) and those who sold him the components for his chemical weaponry (mainly the US and the Soviet Union). If anything, Justice should be seen to be done. In this case, what we saw was a kangaroo court that ended in a deliberately (religiously) provocative execution which, on top of everything else, was filmed and broadcast around the world, adding insult and stupidity to injury.

Retribution is the most dominant (and in this case basically the only) motive in death penalty, and it is the reason why I support the death penalty so strongly in this case.

Saddam deserves to be killed because he killed others. The families of the victims have their right to retribution. His death won't deter other dictators in positions of power at all, so you can't use the deterrence case like you could in a normal murder.

State instituted capital punishment is one of the greatest things that a state can do. It fulfills our natural and justified desire for retribution and ends the possibility of blood feuds that would proceed if we took retribution into our own hands.

Go back to Archaic Athens. Blood feuds rampant, especially between the oligarchic factions. Who knows how they started...

Come Draco, with his law code. Sure, we get our word "draconian" from him because for small crimes he advocated the death penalty, but although his other laws were repealed by Solon, Cleisthenes, and later reformers, his homicide laws stood.

Now, though the trial was a complete joke and though I didn't watch the execution, fellow Orgah's confirm that it was a travesty, this does not at all take away from the principle that Saddam should have been executed.

Since DNA evidence was not used to prove Saddams innocence, I honestly think he was framed by an overzealous distict attorney and racist cops. I think president Ford should have pardoned him before he died.

SADDAM HAS BEEN DEFEATED. IRAQ GAINS 50000 XP

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

Saddam deserves to be killed because he killed others.

---

If only things were that simple. Killing others does not equal murder. And political violence of the kind perpetrated by Saddam shouldn't be met with a lynching in a similar vein. That is worse than a crime, it is a mistake.

The overriding concern in political cases such as his should be the establishment of guilt, responsibility and most of all: the way things actually happened. If the latter could be established, I daresay the complicity of the invaders and occupiers, the US and UK, in Saddam's major crimes (as mentioned above) would become very clear. They are very well documented. Maybe that is something which you as an American don't want to hear. On the other hand it may be that you just don't realise the futility of your primitive concept of justice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

You are both entitled to your views, and Productivity is perfectly entitled to both post in, and withdraw from debate as he sees fit.

Please accept his decision and let's move on.

---

hey Bud, don't start firing on me now. I was just telling my views.Like I said, I was just saying my views, so if you don't like it, just don't respond to me and don't start and I won't say anything.so pelase back off.




Tribes, you making no sense. He killed people for no reason, or for the most idoitc reasons (or having you make idoitc knee jerk statements to irrate people). so please exlapin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

If only things were that simple. Killing others does not equal murder. And political violence of the kind perpetrated by Saddam shouldn't be met with a lynching in a similar vein. That is worse than a crime, it is a mistake.

The overriding concern in political cases such as his should be the establishment of guilt, responsibility and most of all: the way things actually happened. If the latter could be established, I daresay the complicity of the invaders and occupiers, the US and UK, in Saddam's major crimes (as mentioned above) would become very clear. They are very well documented. Maybe that is something which you as an American don't want to hear. On the other hand it may be that you just don't realise the futility of your primitive concept of justice.

---

This is what gets me off. People who have a different opinion on justice than you must have a primitive concept of justice?:no:

:stop:

I expect this bickering to stop.

There are obviously people who are interested in discussing the thread topic in a reasonable and mature way.
Attempts to "hi-jack" this thread by starting personal little squabbles are neither polite nor will they be tolerated.

Thanks for your attention - now back to topic please

:bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patriarch of Constantinople

This is what gets me off. People who have a different opinion on justice than you must have a primitive concept of justice?:no:

---

Agreed. This is why I don't even bother posting on these threads unless I see a post or two that gets me really irrate..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

If only things were that simple. Killing others does not equal murder.

---

This is stating the obvious I'm afraid. I saw no need, given the common knowledge of the case, to explicitly differentiate between Saddam's killings and involuntary manslaughter, self-defense, negligence, etc...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

And political violence of the kind perpetrated by Saddam shouldn't be met with a lynching in a similar vein. That is worse than a crime, it is a mistake.

---

Please re-read my post where I make clear that:

"Now, though the trial was a complete joke and though I didn't watch the execution, fellow Orgah's confirm that it was a travesty, this does not at all take away from the principle that Saddam should have been executed."

Your quoting only an extremely select part of my post (out of context) makes me think that you might have missed that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

The overriding concern in political cases such as his should be the establishment of guilt, responsibility and most of all: the way things actually happened. If the latter could be established, I daresay the complicity of the invaders and occupiers, the US and UK, in Saddam's major crimes (as mentioned above) would become very clear. They are very well documented. Maybe that is something which you as an American don't want to hear.

---

I am well aware of my country's Government involvement with Saddam, its hypocrisy, etc...

I do not know why you would assert this...

"Maybe that is something which you as an American don't want to hear."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

On the other hand it may be that you just don't realise the futility of your primitive concept of justice.

---

Two things with this statement:

One: Do you know how arrogant you come off with these kinds of comments? The supercilious attitude that is present here is not befitting of a Senior Membership title.

Two: Let us then have a discourse on the ethics of death penalty and the issue of retributions place in punishment, instead of avoiding the issue entirely with a label, OK?

I have already given an very basic intro into my support of my position (namely physis), but I would like to ask you: Why do you hold my concept is "primitive"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patriarch of Constantinople

This is what gets me off. People who have a different opinion on justice than you must have a primitive concept of justice?:no:

---

No, not all other concepts are primitive. But I think this one is and I explained why. Hanging a former dictator in the fashion we have witnessed is literally futile; it serves no discernable interest.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

SADDAM HAS BEEN DEFEATED. IRAQ GAINS 50000 XP

---

Current XP: 50,000
Next level: 5,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

Once level 2 is reached, remember Iraq gets full health and mana.

Edit: Just wanted to add that I agree with AdrianIIs notion on justice, to let him know that he is not all alone out there ~:wave:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

No, not all other concepts are primitive. But I think this one is and I explained why. Hanging a former dictator in the fashion we have witnessed is literally futile; it serves no discernable interest.

---

Well apparently to you, all other concepts of justice are primitive. Just because we have a different opinion on what justice is doesn't mean it's primitive. You called our view of justice primitive because it does not match your "primitive" view of justice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patriarch of Constantinople

Well apparently to you, all other concepts of justice are primitive.

---

I presented my case and my reasons for it. Feel free to address them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

I presented my case and my reasons for it. Feel free to address them.

---

But that doesn't mean you can start calling other people's views as "primitive".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patriarch of Constantinople

Well apparently to you, all other concepts of justice are primitive. Just because we have a different opinion on what justice is doesn't mean it's primitive. You called our view of justice primitive because it does not match your "primitive" view of justice.

---

He holds that "The overriding concern in political cases such as his should be the establishment of guilt, responsibility and most of all: the way things actually happened"...

I agree so far. Which is why I hold that the trail was such a joke.

For his sentencing, I hold that execution is what is just. The reasons are due to retribution for his crimes.

He shows his disdain at the way the execution proceeded. I agree. I, however, hold that the principle of the execution still remains just.

I do not know where is "primitive" comment was directed, and its ambiguity led me to hold that it was just an ad hominem.

Now that I reflect on it, I say we should just apply the principle of charity and hold his use of "primitive" as "axiomatic". :grin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patriarch of Constantinople

But that doesn't mean you can start calling other people's views as "primitive".

---

argeed

A 70 year old man who killed millions for no reasons other then to gain more power is dead. You cant excepect me to feel sorry. Im not glad however. I feel nothing. Saddam is the least of my worries right now. His power was broken months ago. Wether he lived or died he has very little to do with the eventual outcome of this conflict. His execution was shoddy and poorly done. No one deserves that, not even him. As for his trial we all knew he was guilty so saying it was anything less than fair is a farce.

Folks,

I think you're reading into AdrianII's word choice a bit much. I believe he is using "primitive" to mean:

straightforward and systemically/culturally simplistic, [not complex/advanced enough to work; this is an attack on the concept, not the poster]

and NOT

ignorant, simple-minded, and useless as are those who espouse same. [THIS would be the insulting version and implied personal attack]

If anything, I get a hint of wistfulness from Adrian -- as though he wished things were straightforward enough for such a system to work. He just doesn't see that approach jibing with the long-term greater good.

His point is arguable, since where and how you "draw the line" in establishing a legal system to promot justice is, and has been, an issue that has probably never been perfectly addressed (and that may be impossible to achieve).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Reenk Roink

For his sentencing, I hold that execution is what is just. The reasons are due to retribution for his crimes.

He shows his disdain at the way the execution proceeded. I agree. I, however, hold that the principle of the execution still remains just.

---

The action may be just, but it's not very clever. He would have been of more use kept alive as an implicit threat to the Shi'ite factions that no-one likes. The Qing emperor Pu Yi should by rights have been executed as a traitor after the war, but the Communists judged that rehabilitating him was of greater benefit to the regime, whatever his crimes. Similarly, Saddam should have been treated as the resource that he was, and used as such. Killing him served no coalition interests, and only removed one of our options.

He serves no purpose alive or dead.

Besides, it is Iraq's decision, so no one else should be bickering.

I don't think many complained when the nazi's were executed. Same thing, different time and place.

Here's a Reuters Update with some more clarification of what happened in the hours and minutes leading up to the execution - including a note that Iraq gov't is investigating how a mobile phone got into the chamber.

Sample:

Quote:

---

While Saddam's sentencing and then death brought muted responses from most Sunnis, many have been particularly angered by video showing supporters of Shi'ite cleric and militia leader Moqtada al-Sadr chanting "Moqtada, Moqtada, Moqtada!" at him.

"Is this what you call manhood?" Saddam told them in reply.

Maliki adviser Askari said the government would look into how guards in the execution chamber, once used by Saddam's own feared secret police, had smuggled in a mobile phone camera.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patriarch of Constantinople

He serves no purpose alive or dead.

---

A secularist with a track record of imposing order on Iraq, who could be relied upon to oppose extremist Islam, Iran, and Osama Bin Laden? I thought we were crying out for that kind of person. Anyway, even if we had no intention of putting him back in power, we should have kept him as an option with which to threaten the various sectarian factions. "Behave yourselves or we'll set Saddam loose on you".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patriarch of Constantinople

Besides, it is Iraq's decision, so no one else should be bickering.

---

I don't think anyone's fooled by the facade of Iraqi sovereignty. Certainly not the Iraqi VP, who claimed that Blair promised an imminent British withdrawal, only to be overruled by Bush. Oh well, Brown's coming in later this year, so even if Blair wants to play the lapdog to the last we'll still be gone soon after.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patriarch of Constantinople

I don't think many complained when the nazi's were executed. Same thing, different time and place.

---

We weren't begging to be released from occupation back then. Also, we actually had a good reason for fighting a war. Remember the worst crime the Nazis were charged with at Nuremberg? Starting a war by invading someone.

Quote:

---

We weren't begging to be released from occupation back then. Also, we actually had a good reason for fighting a war. Remember the worst crime the Nazis were charged with at Nuremberg? Starting a war by invading someone.

---

You mean like how Saddam invaded Kuwait? How he invaded Iran?

Quote:

---

A secularist with a track record of imposing order on Iraq, who could be relied upon to oppose extremist Islam, Iran, and Osama Bin Laden? I thought we were crying out for that kind of person. Anyway, even if we had no intention of putting him back in power, we should have kept him as an option with which to threaten the various sectarian factions. "Behave yourselves or we'll set Saddam loose on you".

---

Ha right. Saddam ruled by fear. No one liked him, the only reason he had order in Iraq is because anyone who opposed him were killed. Iran isn't afraid of Iraq, especially after the Iran-Iraq War. "Oh no it's Saddam!" "Didn't we beat him?" "Oh right". No one was afraid of Saddam except his people. I doubt Kim Jong Li is pissing his pants when he hears about Saddam.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patriarch of Constantinople

Ha right. Saddam ruled by fear. No one liked him, the only reason he had order in Iraq is because anyone who opposed him were killed. Iran isn't afraid of Iraq, especially after the Iran-Iraq War. "Oh no it's Saddam!" "Didn't we beat him?" "Oh right". No one was afraid of Saddam except his people. I doubt Kim Jong Li is pissing his pants when he hears about Saddam.

---

So what future do you see ahead for Iraq?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

So what future do you see ahead for Iraq?

---

Well, if we put him back in power, he would just start his reign all over again. Since we didn't, Iraq's people are glad that the dictator is gone forever. For the future, I see more conflict.

Well, as far as my opinion goes, that was brutal, stupid and unnecessary.

1. Brutal. Hanging? Cmon, that is one of the crudest ways to die today. Like does it make a difference right now. Those people died more than 20 years ago, and even their avengeance won't bring back the dead.

2. Stupid. They have just started a big war. More and more blood in Iraq.

3. Unnecessary. Why kill him? Why couldn't they have kept him? Like it made a real difference.

Stupid. The execution was stupid. Another act of imbecility from Bush.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by edyzmedieval

Well, as far as my opinion goes, that was brutal, stupid and unnecessary.

1. Brutal. Hanging? Cmon, that is one of the crudest ways to die today. Like does it make a difference right now. Those people died more than 20 years ago, and even their avengeance won't bring back the dead.

2. Stupid. They have just started a big war. More and more blood in Iraq.

3. Unnecessary. Why kill him? Why couldn't they have kept him? Like it made a real difference.

Stupid. The execution was stupid. Another act of imbecility from Bush.

---

1. Would you rather have him tortured? Hanging is quick and painless if done right. When you reach the bottom, you pass out since your brain isn't getting blood. So, you can't feel anything. Perfect execution method.

2. He started the war. Invading Kuwait.

3. Why keep him alive?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patriarch of Constantinople

2. He started the war. Invading Kuwait.

---

Can you show where this was given as one of the justifications put forward to Congress? Because I certainly don't remember that being raised in the Commons.

On a sidenote: do you realise your reasoning also justifies the Soviet invasion of Poland in 1939? Or, for that matter, an invasion of Poland by just about any of its neighbours. The post-Versailles Poland was very belligerent indeed towards its neighbours, putting Saddam's Iraq to shame.

Is it possible to live in manner that is worse then death?

How many of his offspring survived?

How pitiful did he look in his white y-fronts?

I would have chosen life in prison for him working as a swine herder.

=][=

Since they went down the execution path they should have fully implemented it.

After hanging him they should have cremated his body and scattered it to the winds. No site for mourning, no site of rallying of militia around a so called martyr.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Can you show where this was given as one of the justifications put forward to Congress? Because I certainly don't remember that being raised in the Commons.

On a sidenote: do you realise your reasoning also justifies the Soviet invasion of Poland in 1939? Or, for that matter, an invasion of Poland by just about any of its neighbours. The post-Versailles Poland was very belligerent indeed towards its neighbours, putting Saddam's Iraq to shame.

---

Stalin was a dictator. He did invade Poland, but no one wanted to mess with the USSR.

My reasoning is saying that Saddam was a rutheless dictator and deserved to die.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Is it possible to live in manner that is worse then death?

I would have chosen life in prison for him working as a swine herder.

---

do they allow pigs in Iraq?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bar Kochba

do they allow pigs in Iraq?

---

Saddam :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patriarch of Constantinople

Stalin was a dictator. He did invade Poland, but no one wanted to mess with the USSR.

---

Did you miss the point that Poland invaded the newborn USSR in the early 1920s? You said that we were right to invade Iraq because Iraq invaded Kuwait in the early 1990s. By that reasoning, Stalin was even more right to invade Poland in 1939, since his country was the original victim.

Also, can you provide proof as I had asked for, that part of the rationale for the Iraq war as presented to the US Congress in 2003 was Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patriarch of Constantinople

My reasoning is saying that Saddam was a rutheless dictator and deserved to die.

---

If that's the reasoning politicians act by, no wonder Iraq is going to the dogs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Did you miss the point that Poland invaded the newborn USSR in the early 1920s? You said that we were right to invade Iraq because Iraq invaded Kuwait in the early 1990s. By that reasoning, Stalin was even more right to invade Poland in 1939, since his country was the original victim.

Also, can you provide proof as I had asked for, that part of the rationale for the Iraq war as presented to the US Congress in 2003 was Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990?


If that's the reasoning politicians act by, no wonder Iraq is going to the dogs.

---

Why the hell is Stalin part of this?

Anyway, so we should've just let Iraq take Kuwait? Saddam would think he could invade anyone he pleased. I don't know what goes on in American Congress so I don't know. Again, should the world just have let Iraq take Kuwait?

No, Saddam shouldn't have been allowed to take Kuwait in 1990. No, that had nothing to do with ousting Saddam from power in 2003.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patriarch of Constantinople

Why the hell is Stalin part of this?

---

I thought your reasoning regarding Iraq/Kuwait and 2003 was pretty offbeat, so I tried to find a well-known recent parallel. Unfortunately the example I chose was a bit too logical compared with the original.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patriarch of Constantinople

Anyway, so we should've just let Iraq take Kuwait? Saddam would think he could invade anyone he pleased. I don't know what goes on in American Congress so I don't know. Again, should the world just have let Iraq take Kuwait?

---

Err, didn't you notice? We had a war in 1991, in which Iraqi troops were conclusively expelled from Kuwait. I haven't noticed any change in that condition since then, or did I miss something?

Since you don't know much about the US Congress, my original request may have been a bit unfair. So let's change it a little. I guess you're Greek, so was the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990 cited as one of the reasons why Greece had to join the invasion of Iraq in 2003? Has the Greek parliament changed its mind over its decision to join the Iraqi operation? Have you received any paybacks for the risks your brave troops face on a daily basis in Iraq? Has Muslim terrorism spiked since you sent troops to Iraq?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geoffrey S

No, Saddam shouldn't have been allowed to take Kuwait in 1990. No, that had nothing to do with ousting Saddam from power in 2003.

---

But wasn't that the final straw to the US and UK? They simply had enough of it, and wanted him out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patriarch of Constantinople

But wasn't that the final straw to the US and UK? They simply had enough of it, and wanted him out.

---

The UK wanted nothing to do with any Iraq war.

It's obvious this is getting no where, and I'm not going to exhaust my opinions. Good day

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patriarch of Constantinople

It's obvious this is getting no where, and I'm not going to exhaust my opinions. Good day

---

So you won't debate with someone because they don't have the same view as you? Niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

So you won't debate with someone because they don't have the same view as you? Niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiice.

---

No, it's because I'm trying to help you understand my point, but it seems you can't and start rambling off about Stalin and Poland.

Nice try using my words against me, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patriarch of Constantinople

No, it's because I'm trying to help you understand my point, but it seems you can't and start rambling off about Stalin and Poland.

---

So let's ignore that comparison, and return to my request for evidence that your parliament cited Kuwait 1990 as a justification for Iraq 2003. Since you admit to an ignorance about the American Congress, and your posts elsewhere suggest you are Greek, I have asked for evidence that the Greek parliament considered Kuwait 1990 as one of the reasons why it should join Iraq 2003. Can you provide any cites?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

So let's ignore that comparison, and return to my request for evidence that your parliament cited Kuwait 1990 as a justification for Iraq 2003. Since you admit to an ignorance about the American Congress, and your posts elsewhere suggest you are Greek, I have asked for evidence that the Greek parliament considered Kuwait 1990 as one of the reasons why it should join Iraq 2003. Can you provide any cites?

---

Hmmm even though this isn't about Greece?

So, yet again, you are saying things completely beside the point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patriarch of Constantinople

Hmmm even though this isn't about Greece?

---

We're talking about justification for the war, since you brought up Kuwait in the first place. Since you don't appear to be familiar with the US Congress, and I certainly don't remember Kuwait being cited in Commons debates, I figured you would be more familiar with your own national assembly that makes such decisions. I'm trying to be reasonable here, in framing the question to suit your knowledge. So, was Kuwait mentioned in the debates that led to your country deciding to join the Iraq war?

Too bad Greece never was part of the Iraq War

https://img223.imageshack.us/img223/...llingoryn1.png

This is basically the nations who are part of the war

Sorry, those were the original supporters.

Here are the current countries with military in Iraq

https://img412.imageshack.us/img412/...ceinirafw7.png