Saddam Hussein to receive death penalty
 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/6117910.stm

"The former Iraqi president was convicted by a Baghdad court for his role in the killing of 148 people in the mainly Shia town of Dujail in 1982."

I... Almost didn't expect this to happen. I'm not an advocate of the death penalty, nor am I vehemently against it, but after so much of this I'm actually going to have to say I wholeheartedly agree with this verdict... Yet there's something disconcerting about the fact that he's to be hanged.

He's being given the right to an appeal, but prospects for his success are dodgy at best.

Haha I just wanted to create a thread like this but then I saw yours ;)

Well, I totally expected this and you cannot tell me that there hasn't been any influence from the "coalition". Of course, it will take ages until the sentence will be executed.

The entire trial has been a farce in my opinion, though.

On the other hand, Saddam has been a real asshole during the trial, so that's what he gets fucking around with the judges.

It is quite an illusion to think that Iraq will become a more peaceful nation now, though.

He's guilty... big woop, this was common knowledge before the guy was found in that hole in the ground. Why they needed a trial to document this is beyond me.

As far as peace is concerned, it is har to tell. The Shiites are celebrating and the Sunnis are vowing revenge.

...what?

I believe it's called "due process of law". You might have heard of it; liberalism is really big on it.

Iraq is not the most librial country that I know of, I got a feeling if the U.S did not back the trial, there may have not been a trial at all.

There has been a trial or do you think the pictures were made in Hollywood Studios?

Oh I know that there was a trial, that is why I mentioned that if the U.S did not back it, there may have not been one. Your sig looks more that it was made in Hollywood Studios :biggrin:

So now he can be a martyr, that's good. They should have at least given him his request to be executed in the military fashion, by firing squad.

Oh, and I just can't wait for the internet to be flooded with photoshopped images of his hanging corpse.

I don't think he had a fair trial; in fact it was quite farcical from what was reported. Not that it matters. Everyone knew he was guilty from the beginning, all that was in question was how much the new "government" of Iraq would milk it for themselves and their allies. I have no doubt that the execution of Saddam will only add to the anarchy that currently prevails in the new Iraq. I wonder how Iran will react to the greater chaos.

Somehow I think Shias and Sunnis are too busy killing each other already to care about Saddam.

Finally vindication for 9/11 am i rite friends?

http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/1...etrosesnh6.gif

The odd thing is about Iraqi law is that the sentence must be carried out 30 days after the appeal is exhausted (and it sounds like that will be in about a month). So all the other trials that were being planned, they just won't matter. He'll be dead before they even get started.

What was the link between Saddam and 9/11 again?

Killing one person really makes up for the deaths of others. Oh well.

he was the dude in the plane right?

Really? What is?

Death by hanging. Wonder if it'll be public.

They'd better hurry up if they want to get the hanging in before the midterm elections as well. This wasn't planned at all either, you know, happening days before a crucial vote. I mean, only conspiracy nuts think in those kind of terms.

Malcolm Smart, Director of the Middle East and North Africa for Amnesty International:

I know he is an evil and unrepenting man; but how you can call this a fair trial is beyond me, and to kill the man is to just sweep the problem under the rug, theres no victory here on the 'war on terror' Mr. Blair. He probably does deserve to be killed (yet who are we to say), but how you can uphold this verdict from such a incompetent, negligent, polictally strung and dispicable trial is beyond me, espeically from those tout a new 'democratic' Iraq dictated to by the United States.

I love the timing of this charade which comes days before the US votes in mid-term elections.

I think that's the joke...

These trials have about as much precedence as Nuremberg, so I don't think anybody's really going to care.

How could you actually find an impartial judge/jury in Iraq anyway?

Also,

Does anyone else find this completely hilarious? If the statement's true, then what the hell's the point of the trial other than having a dog and pony show?

There is no other purpose RR. He was going to be found guilty regardless of how the trial was setup. Saddam's lawyer defending him too well? He's dead. We can just blame it on some guys in Iraq, I mean, the country is in chaos, what else would you expect?

Bear in mind that we're superimposing American liberties upon a country that has strictly opposed American influences for years. The idea that Hussein was entitled to a fair trial seems almost ridiculous when you realize that he spent his entire tenure relentlessly preventing the erection of a fair judicial system in Iraq. Such was the nature of his dictatorship: if someone so much as spoke ill of you, that was enough reason for Hussein to have you killed. Public trials were only a formality to a foregone conclusion.

Why do you think Hussein has been so smug during the whole process? He knew that Iraq had nothing resembling a balanced judicial system, so there was little point in doing anything to sway public opinion. He was being subjected to the same mock justice system he helped create. Even Saddam can appreciate a little irony.

But the larger point is that he was tried before an Iraqi court and was sentenced as per Iraqi law. As Suddam is a citizen of Iraq, this seems most fair. Execution may not be the most palatable resolution but it's consistent with the punishments Saddam has doled out upon others, and it is a matter for Iraqis to decide.

NOT AMERICANS.

Yeah, I figured they would have wanted to give him the death sentence. And even though I am not a supporter of the death penalty, I would partially have to agree he deserves this at the very least. I mean, he ordered to killed hundreds of thousands of people, and probably never blinked an eye. I can see why the people are so pissed off.

I doubt that. The struggle in Iraq is a power one and people have forgotten him.


I'm not for the death penalty and quite honestly, the trial was a fucking joke.

So were the Nuremburg Trials after World War II, but I don't hear you people complaining about that.

If you win the war, you get to hold trials for people by saying they violated laws that you created after the fact and execute them. It's all a formality. It'd be a lot easier to just shoot them on the battlefield than go through all the formalities.

Except, technically, we haven't won the war in Iraq. We're just kicking around the sand right now, waiting for more absolute orders than "stay the course".

We won enough to hold phony trials, and that's all that really matters in the end. Women. Am I right fellas?

I wonder how long it'll be before this latest judge gets assassinated? He must be shitting himself right now after giving that verdict.

Well, the war on Iraq was (essentially) won when we took Baghdad and the conventional army stopped opposing us. This is a counterinsurgency operation we're stuck in. We're training Iraqi military, not fighting 'em.

Depends on what you mean by 'winning.'

If by winning you mean that we destroyed the Iraqi Army and deposed its leadership, yes, we've won.

If by winning you mean that we turned Iraq into the shining beacon of Democracy that is the envy of the rest of the Arab world, then, no, we haven't won - yet.

And never will - ever.

i'd like to respond to this comment...

while there may have been no victory in iraq inasmuch as the country is a stable place with the us government's seal-of-approval, there has been a victory on the side of the "allies." that is to say: a despot WAS deposed, a newer government has been (begun to have been, anyway) set up, and that country has even put its former tyrant on trial. these are for the most part positive changes in that they are helping a country that was in an ambiguous-at-best place before this "war."

however, when it comes to victory in the sense of completion and achieving of initial goals... i'm not sure that is a possibility. achieving the initial goals is pretty much impossible due to the fact that the initial goals (at least those presented to the public by the US gov't) are unachievable. we can't eliminate WMDs that don't exist, we can't cut back support that wasn't being given by the iraqis to al qaeda, and we can't force a new form of government on an entire people with their full cooperation and excitement.
victory as completion is basically impossible because completing the creation of a government simply doesn't happen. the US has been around for more than 200 years and we've still got PLENTY of kinks in our system. also, there will always be rebels and insurgents who will act radically, and right now this war is mostly fighting them. the problem is, they aren't a good target to fight in the same way terrorists are difficult to target - they don't necessarily act cohesively, they often are more than willing to die for their cause, and their major goal is to stall their enemy (which is a goal achieved simply by having an enemy engaged).

so, in those respects, we never will have a victory. and i agree with Capo. however, in the way that Gechmir was describing it, we have had a victory. but i guess my main point is that having this (more technical) victory, and now having successfully tried and convicted and sentenced the former tyrant of the country we invaded ---- what's left to do there considering the fact that a more satisfying victory, like the one i described above, is essentially unreachable?

Hold on and try to dream up a solution that doesn't involve Iran becoming the dominant influence on Iran after we're gone.

Of course, that seems remarkably unlikely at this stage, and god knows the current administration hasn't a clue how to prevent that. So they're keeping the boots on the ground, and American soldiers continue to die in what's amounting to a stalling tactic.


As for Saddam: who cares. This was a largely foregone conclusion, and I can't imagine much of anyone will be mourning or lamenting his death.

There is no victory where massive military operations are still on going, where troops are still being murdered daily by the dissolved Iraqi army that hides amongst the population and uses guerilla tactics. Saddam was deposed and caught, but I see no military victory at all.

I am not one to say which country is the most librial, but I can tell you that Iraq is not. As far as a public hanging is concerned, I have no clue. Wither it would be public or not would not suprise me either way... personally I do not think a public hanging would be a good idea, the verdict is already receiving
mixed criticism and violence could be a result. A public hanging could attract supporters from both sides and cause a uproar.

As long as you're done trying to sound insightful, you can still "win" without having victory. Hamlet won, for instance. So did Robert E. Lee, countless times.

I wouldn't say it's unreachable... The Philippines were followed by a twelve-year counterinsurgency program. Sure, that was at the dawning of the 20th century, but there is no perfectly simple way to fight an army that lacks uniforms, per se. It's winnable, but it'll take a lot of time. And the American population is very impatient on most things.

With a cut-and-run tactic always in display, nothing will get done. Hate to quote the beaten-to-death saying, but stay the course.

Sorry dude, I was being totally sarcastic.

We started the war in Iraq in 2003 and it's now the end of 06. So it's been 3 years since the inital conflict and occupation. Here's something to consider...

Look at Japan during WWII. They start the fight on Dec 7, 1941, and after years of war and rebuilding, we don't finally exit a new soverign democratized Japan until April 28, 1952. It only took us 3 years to get them to surrender, but the rebuilding process cost nearly a million US dollars a day (which was a shitload in the 40s) and lasted for an additional 8 years. We had 350,000 troops occupying Japan for that time. Even after the turnover we continued to occupy Okinawa until 72'.

The rebuilding of a state including a complete political culture overhaul takes time, but as with the example of Japan, it can be worth the investment. Now Japan is a powerful ally and is one of the most prosperous states on the globe. Granted Iraq is a completely different situation, but we've only been there for 3 years while we were patient enough to rebuild Japan for 10.

OK, i'll admit you can be victorious in a battle (even several battles like Lee), while losing the war overall. Ultimately, it's the war that matters the most. In the case of Iraq, the jury is still out on that one.

HUP DUP DURRR

The jury is still out, but that's not the point. The point is we've won enough to help the Iraqis assemble a kangaroo court, and there's not shit anybody can do about it.

The key ingredient in the success of that investment, however, was cooperation. We invested in the Phillipines and that country is still in the shit.

Saying that it'll "take time" will not be enough for people that are monitoring these events, and understand how many losses of personnel and materiel are stacking up.

The Japanese weren't hiding in pits ready to strike the arming pin for an unexploded bomb as tanks rolled over them during the occupation.

I might be out on a limb but my government class was talking about this and I was wonder what happened to his brothers.

This will probably be the last time I post in the polititcal place wont it?

I don't see why. It's a legitimate question and isn't too far off-topic. Other than your poor wording there's nothing inherently wrong with your post.

The ONLY reason why the United States will lose in Iraq is because of people demanding that we essentially give up.

If we stay and fight, we will win, hands down, every time. It's not a matter of ability, it's a matter of will and quite simply, the civillian population of the United States and half of its population doesn't have the will to do what it takes to win in Iraq.

also, don't forget that japan had SOME democratic experience. Of course, I don't know much about it, so I can,t tell how really democratic it was...

the thing is, however laic (non religious praticers?) Iraq was, it is still in a region where western democracy (with all the rights that come with it) hasn't been implemented. Bringing by force can only fail... unless the whole region is invaded. But then, it will only breed more terrorists

I love posters like this in here. Basically you stated something, but then said, "Of course, I don't know much about it..." So why did you even state that japan had some democratic experience to begin with? If you know that you don't know what you're talking about, then why add anything?

What is your definition of winning in this instance?

The War is won when either all the coalition forces there are dead, or when all the Iraqi there are dead. Considering the rate at which Iraqis are coming up dead, I'd say we're winning.

I like how you don't know anything about war.

How do you define victory, in this case? Does it involve glowing green parking lots?

edit: I like how I just said what Mikey did. Way to not read the rest of the replies.

History has shown us that victory is awarded to the side that wants it the most. This doesn't just apply to war. In fact, it applies to life in general. That's exactly what Night Phoenix is saying. As he explained above, the prospect of this war depends on what we've accomplished and the stipulations of it. You can say we won this war by overthrowing Saddam's regime. You could also say we lost because of the current quagmire. It solely depends on your perspective.

what you're actually saying is that, if the insurgants stay and fight, they'll win because they have the will. in fact, like i said before, all they have to do is oppose us and keep killing off our soldiers.

however, in direct contradiction to what you said, we have to kill/assimilate all of the insurgents to win... good luck there.

Any victory we get out of this will be meaningless if we can never create enough returns that will make up for the loss of lives and capital. Right now I can't see Iraq as anything other than a charybdis that consumes money and vomits debt.

You don't know what you're talking about.

Insurgencies can't go on forever, especially when they tend to kill more civillians than actual soldiers. Insurgencies win because they make things difficult for the politicians who command the troops back at home. The insurgents can only win if we choose to give up. Every day that passes, we eliminate their support base because everytime we engage them we kill them by the DOZENS and they tend to kill hundreds of the people they claim to be 'liberating' from American occupation.

But is US winning, no matter how long it takes, the course of least harm?

I'm really worried about potential backlash against American troops in Iraq. We've had quite enough casualties already as of late.

true, same here. But what would it show the world if we were to 'weak' to do what needs to be done? (actually the Iraqis tried him, not us anyway, but...)
it would show a lot of things...none the least of which is that anyone can do that kind of stuff, and have no repercussions from it

Ask yourself this question then: Is America handing victory to the insurgents, allowing Iraq to completely collapse into what will inevitably become a fundamentalist state allied with Iran the course of least harm?

Yes, the Iraq War is costly as hell and could've (and should've) been prosecuted much better than it has, but the costs associated with having to deal with an Islamic axis in the Middle East is a far greater cost.

The cost of winning is preferrrable to the cost of losing.

I might agree with you Phoenix, but the Republicans have done a poor job selling that story to the American public. I think you'll see proof of that as the election results come in tonight. The cost of losing is high, but the track record of the current administration suggests another approach will be employed.

People's decision to elect Democrats into power is a sign of weakness, nothing more, nothing less. We know what the Democrats want to do - give up.

10 years down the road, the decision to turn over power to the Democratic Party will come back to bite us harder than even I can begin to fathom right now.

Iraq will implode completely once we surrender to the insurgents and withdraw, Iran will help the Shites take control and it'll become a mirror of their former enemy. Together, they'll go after Israel and one domino after another will fall.

Good job, Americans.

I thought most democrats just wanted a faster way out. Not to suddenly give up. Most of the time when I hear one talk about Iraq they do not say they're going to get us out of Iraq right now. They say they just want a faster route out of Iraq. But that we're not leaving anytime soon. Not untill Iraq is stable atleast.

I dont see how anyone could reasonably believe anyone would get us out before Iraq is stable.

The policy of the Democratic Party is withdrawal. Of course they aren't going to demand the immediate removal of troops, but they have been since '04 demanding some sort of 'timetable', which basically amounts to "American troops will leave on ___" which tells the insurgents that all they have to do is chill the fuck out until American troops leave and then just unleash hell during the ensuing power vacuum.

Do you think during World War II that the opposition party was sitting back demanding a timetable as to when we would stop fighting the Japanese and Germans (I'm keenly aware that SOME Republicans probably were arguing something similar, but in no way are the like the modern-day Democrats)? Fuck no. No, it was "The troops will come home when the battle is won" - period, point-blank.

Listen to the statements of Jack Murtha, Harry Reid, Dick Durbin, Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, and a host of other Democratic leaders. Mind you, you're talking about future Speaker of the House Pelosi and potential future Senate Majority Leader Reid.

Whether they call it withdrawal or redeployment, the policy of the Democratic Party is simple: Give up.

Can you at least acknowledge that the job the Bush administration has done in Iraq has been horribly misguided, if guided at all, and suffered from lack of communication at several levels? Not saying we should give up here, but we've been over there a while now... Republicans still dont have a time table, or a real semblance of a plan.

thanks, i feel the same about you.


insurgencies can't go on forever? well, i guess so. but on the same token, neither can state-supported combat using armies.

they care, why? i mean, their mission is chaos and killing civilians doesn't matter to them -- casualties of war to them. in any case, i think they can last indefinitely as they have no unified financial backer who is suffering, and instead they will keep fighting because they believe they are doing a service to themselves. further, even when the current generation of insurgents dies off, there will always be children to indoctrinate and convert to their cause.

as a logical consequence, we will only win by staying there forever OR by having them all die out (unlikely since there are constantly newly indoctrinated ones).

every da, they kill our soldiers, weakening the morale of the troops and the support back home. and like i said before, i don't think they really care about the casualties on their side. i mean, these are the people who believe strongly it's more than worth it to die for this cause (as evidenced by the suicide bombers).

Again, what is your definition of a victory in Iraq? I'm sorry, I'm just having difficulty understanding how the US can win a foreign country's civil war.

Apropos of nothing, Night Phoenix, you seem to be a very bang-up kind of guy. Very support the troops. Aren't you of enlistable age?

Worse than a decade of occupation, during which terrorist groups have a powerful soure of propaganda to fuel their recruitment campaign and the collective world opinion increasingly turns against America and her allies. A generation of our young men dying over a lost cause based off false intelligence. I don't know, it's hard to say.

We can't be certain of the future, no matter how confidently you try and predict it. What we can be certain of though is that no matter with we withdraw tomorrow or dig in or ten years, Iraq is fucked either way. There is going to be years of bloody violence there, a combination of anarchy chaos occupations and civil war. The question is; do you really want to be part of it?

lol I was almost taking your predictions seriously until you reminded me of the domino effect. Those damn commies took over Malaysia and Singapore and Indonesia and the Philipines and Japan and Australia and and and no.

Come to think of it, what dominoes do the terrorists have to fall in the first place? It's not like militant Wahabbi doesn't already have a stranglehold on Arab nations.

Yes, but the very things I listed are the reasons why insurgencies can't go on forever. Insurgencies, over time, destroy their support base, especially when such insurgencies have very little regard for civillian lives like these. Insurgencies count on the fact that civillians of the occupying country will force the politicians to surrender. If the will to stay and fight remains for a prolonged period of time then an insurgency cannot win because they win only through psychological warfare on the civillians back home, not militarily. The longer U.S. troops stay, the more time the Iraqi government has to solidify its resources, and consequently the less effective the insurgents become. If we leave before the Iraqi government can effectively defend the country and have something to truly offer the people to not make them support or at least tolerate the presence of the insurgency.

Again, I'm not for being in Iraq forever, just long enough so that we can make sure the Iraqi government is strong enough to handle shit on their own. If we leave right now, then it's outright surrender.Given the majority I just woke up to, it's fairly certain that America will leave prematurely, giving the Democrats their self-fulfilling prophecy because they've been determined to see Iraq fail from day one and have done everything in their power to undermine the policy, with the requisite help from the most incompetent administration I've ever encountered.

See above.

I'm 22, with a fucked up left ankle held together by a metal rod that not only makes me physically unable to be in the military, but fucked up me being the most dominant defensive tackle coming into the University of Texas in 2002 (which assuredly would have me in the NFL by now....dunno, hopefully?), which forced me to accept an academic scholarship to the University of North Texas and a dual degree in political science and history.

Besides, why don't you just come out with your idiotic "You can't support the war unless you're in the military" argument instead of trying to veil it?

I'm an analyst by trade - I did go to college and got a degree for this shit and get paid on the side by both the private sector (hello Heritage Foundation) AND the government (CIA) to study this shit. How many of you kids had a job offer from the CIA sitting on the table the second you got ya degree? If we surrender in Iraq (and the way things look, as soon as January 2009 when a Democratic president takes over, we will) then the whole region is fucked off because we won't be able to do shit anymore because it becomes a known fact that if you inflict a few thousand casualties on American troops that we will give up. That's when they go for the juggular.

But maybe I'm wrong, maybe surrender is the right policy and everything will be better if America refuses to engage the enemy and just plays defense.

That statement would be fine if we had a leadership that could develop a plan that would allot the Iraqi government the power to be self-sustaining. But perhaps thats a tangent best left unsaid in this thread.

what I find funny is the fact he wanted to reconcile the tension between the people AFTER he got sentenced to die. typical isn't it?

The problem with all this "we need to stay until the job is done" crap is that the problem right now is sectarian violence. Iraqis fighting Iraqis. The U.S. doesn't have the solution to that -- Iraq does. This isn't something we can solve. Sticking around and helping repel any foreign fighters is alright, but really, at this point it's up to the Iraqis to resolve their own civil war, not us.

But shouldn't the US be responsible for cleaning up their mess?

It's not like the Iraqis started this civil war out of boredom. Removing Saddam has left a vacuum - and nobody has come up with a solution to fill it.

We're going to have to deal with Iran one way or another, and the religious views of the Iraqi people aren't going to change.

Why wouldn't the insurgency just lay low now? It would have the same effect. If we didn't see an insurgency, we would finish up the job and come home anyway, whether or not there is a timetable.

The job is failing because we can't (or aren't) doing it. We don't put enough into fixing Iraq. All the money we've spent on this war, and we can't even control a force that has no major central figure heading it. We're supposedly the best force in the history of mankind and we can't even control Iraq. We've been at it for 5 years and we can't control an area the size of Arizona. And we probably never will, considering that 30-40% of the Iraqi population (at least) doesn't even want us to.

Perhaps you need to focus less on whether we can win or lose or whether or not what the hell we are doing is winnable at all.

And the corollary to what you are arguing is that the Iraqis, the ones we want as friends, they will never step up unless we force them to. The initial wave of the war has been over how long? And how much progress has been made? Pulling out immediately is wrong. But there isn't anything wrong with saying to Iraq, "Look, fuckers, we came in here and took care of the worst shit for you guys, now learn to fucking deal with your own problems."

It's good news, NP. Wounded veterans with missing limbs are being sent back to Iraq, so your injury might not be as big of a burden as you might think.

But you're mistaken about my argument, sir. You can support the troops until the cows come home while being a civilian, that's silly to say that you can't. But, I don't see you crying over flag-draped coffins or bitching about vet benefits being cut back, in this thread. You're smart enough to read what I'm trying to say.

Understand this and understand it well, lurker. I support the U.S. military to the highest degree possible for a civillian. While I don't break down and cry everytime I hear about soldiers dying over there, it does indeed disturb me, but alas, that's what happens during wars - soldiers die. I got a brother who has served five tours in Iraq, another that's served since 2001 in Afghanistan, so to say that I have basically nothing at stake here, that I'm just totally detached from the reality that soldiers do die in war is bullshit.

That's one of the few things that someone could say to my face that would get the piss knocked out of them.

Well, I certainly hope your brother stays safe and in one piece. I don't know why, or even how, you could view 'killing all the insurgents' as victory and at the same time say the troops safety is in your best interest. That's all I'm saying.

I never said we had to kill all the insurgents, only that time is on our side because insurgents only do what they do in order to make things hard for politicians at home.

How can you possibly say that time is on your side with dozens of soldiers and innocent people dying on a daily basis?

Very easily. Next question, please.

Taking him to the Hague probably wouldn't have reflected well on the state of Iraq's legal framework thing-o.

Also if the US removes from its war, wouldn't the Saudis have something to say if Iran organised a Shiite governance for Iraq? They surely wouldn't let Iran annex Iraq. Can't really see your domino paranoia having quite the forecast effect, NP.

Because he doesn't have to deal with it.

Alternately, he forgets how passionate people - yes, even insurgents - can be when it comes to making things difficult for politicians they don't agree with.

It's a weird argument, all told. Saying that time is on our side, but then saying that we have to stick it out to the long, bitter end. No wonder he's against a timetable, that would mean making a strategy and sticking with it.

There you go with the strawman argument bullshit, lurker.

I have nothing against developing a workable strategy for victory (because the current one is shit), but what I do have a problem with is "Ok, we're going to keep troops there until May 1st 2007 and then we're going to leave, regardless of the situation" - which is what the Democrats want.

Back to the boxer analogy - it's like telling the other boxer that if you don't knock him out by the 5th round that you're going to throw in the towel. He then knows that to win, all he has to do is survive until the 6th round, at which time you will give up. He really doesn't even have to fight you anymore once he knows this - he can just cover up and absorb your blows, doing everything he can to prevent you from knocking him out.

But if he knows that you're coming after him full force until you put him on the ground for the knockout, then he doesn't have that option. At some point, he knows he's going to have to have to actually beat you because you won't give up.

i don't believe you have the authority to make such a statement on behalf of a group which you are not a part of. democrats, in fact, do not think as a collective. here is an excerpt from the Boston Globe about democrats and a proposed plan to move out of iraq:
there are democrats who may think of date-based deadlines as important, and there are others that think more of goal-based deadlines.

but, no matter his determination, if his body gives out, he's going to get knocked down.

I don't give a shit what you believe. This is the policy the Democrats want and by and large, the leadership of the Democratic Party, which is overwhelmingly anti-American and socialist in their ideologies, wants America to immediately begin to draw down troop levels regardless of the level of progress in Iraq.

Even though the newly elected Democrats in Congress are more centrists, the people who hold the power are these ultra-liberals who want to make America weaker.

troop withdrawal, even phased withdrawal won't work in the present situation, and everyone knows it. We learned it from vietnam

Jack Murtha
Harry Reid
Nancy Pelosi
Dick Durbin
Howard Dean

All of them hold positions that support the withdrawal of U.S. troops. There are likely more.

how adult of you

i just showed this to be untrue.

i love it. anti-american. that term is utterly ridiculous to be applied to anyone who is elected and represents the opinions and views of AMERICANS (at least those of a plurality of the election voters)

i don't understand this point of view -- why would ANYONE who lives and works for the promotion of america want to make it weaker.

No, you haven't. You showed that some unknown, unnamed quantity of Democrats want a more goal-based approach to withdrawing troops from Iraq. However, nearly every Democrat in Congress that holds a position of power (Minority Leader, Minority Whip, etc.) or has a prominent name in the media supports withdrawing from Iraq regardless of progress because they believe the war is a lost cause.

Whether or not these people were elected has zero bearing on whether or not they are anti-American or not. And by and large, the Democratic Party supports an agenda that will weaken the United States economically and geopolitically, which can't be construed as anything less than Anti-American.

You don't understand it because you falsely assume that the Democratic Party in the United States actually lives and works for the promotion of America.

well, at this point, i'm realizing that your views are such that they cannot be changed because you won't allow them to be.

all i want to say is that, though you may disagree with democrats (as i sometimes do with them, and almost always do with republicans), anti-american is just plain the wrong word. are they wrong? maybe. are they not considering all the facts? maybe. are they deliberately sabotaging our government? if they are, they aren't following the most basic democratic principles.

Would "pro-peace" be a better word than anti-American?
I think it would, anti-American implies some kind of treason. Pro-peace sounds more like what the Democrats are.

No, Pro-Peace would not be a better word than Anti-American because it does not accurately describe the blatant refusal to even acknowledge who the enemies of the country are, let alone fight them.

I guess we can all agree that we all just want the war to be over and those whom are responsible are punished for it

Although I hate to admit it, public opinion does seem to have an influence on politicians. Even if the democrats control the cognress, they simply caN,t systematically oppose Bush because he is Bush. Furthermkore, if they really weaken they economy, as you pretend they will, then they will get kicked out in 2 years

I'm curious: does the recall procedure exist on the federal level?

See, you're wrong because the Democrats can (and have) oppose Bush simply because he is Bush - that's been their de facto policy since 2001 when Bush took office.

The 2002, 2004, and 2006 elections were elections where the Democrats ran on a platform of "We're not Bush." This is what the Democratic majority in Congress is built upon - opposing George W. Bush.

And the policies the Democrats advocate WILL weaken the economy significantly but they will in turn blame the weakening on Bush because he is still in office and push for even higher tax increases and even more gov't spending.

And no, there is no such thing as a 'federal recall.'

but while they were in the opposition, they had the easy game since they were in minority. However, now that they are in power... I have some doubt on whether they will continuously oppose BUsh or not. We shall see

yes, they may have capitalize on the "we're not bush" slogan, but once in power, things prove to be difference:eyebrow:

Of course they will continuously oppose Bush - it's why they were elected. Incoming Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid see it as their mandate - anything Bush wants to do will be frustrated at every possible opportunity.

Dark days are ahead for America under Democratic leadership in the terrorism age.

Which will make my national debut album, Dark America, all that more relevant when it hits shelves next September.

Well, I say "good riddance", although I have a nagging suspicion that it won't happen. But maybe it will...

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_4919878

They're saying he will be hanged by tomorrow, the latest. I just hope there's a video of it on Youtube. (Yeah, I'm a sick fuck)

The video probably will be on YouTube, which is really funny. I was going to make a new thread on it, but I guess this thread will fit.

Do you guys think American News Channels should broadcast the hanging?
how do you guys feel about it even being on YouTube.

I think that for Iraqis to see as it as proof of the death of the dictator. For Americans to broadcast it on cable or YouTube presents a few problems, no matter what happens.

Hahhaha, in before someone puts it on Youtube.

"now he's just hanging around Iraq" ~ Anonymous, /k/

Hooray for idiots in Dearborn, MI dancing in the streets, cheering for his execution.

"YAY JUSTICE LIEK WUT"

I laughed at CNN's headline image showing him and his dates of life.

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2006/WORLD/me...am.hussein.jpg

Awww he deserves a melancholy obituary image.

Back to the idiots in Dearborn: they're celebrating like they just won a championship or something. Don't these people have anything better to do?

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/world...eax.afp.gi.jpg

WOOOOOOOOO

I just heard that he was executed. I'm sorry, I might get flack for this but it pisses me off. I'm against the death penalty. To me it doesn't matter how horrible you are or how many people you killed, no one deserves to die. I just don't think we have the right to take one's life to justify the crimes one commited. Ugh and hanging of all things...

Take it up with the Iraqis.

You speak as if the United States or a church was in charge of his trial. He was tried under Iraqi law, a judicial system that he helped install. Saddam approved the death penalty when he was dictator, then abused it. It's not without irony that the same system convicted Saddam and ordered his death. It is up to the Iraqi people to decide whether they can accept acting as his killers, which they obviously can.

I believe in fairness, not pacifism. Those who would intentionally take a life should be willing to give up their own in payment. This is the proposition that a soldier accepts when defending his country. This is the risk a murderer accepts when he kills an innocent. If you live by the sword, it is only fitting that you die by it also. Fair is fair.

But let's not turn this into a big circle-jerk over whether it's ethically just to hang a despot. The deed has been done and now all we can do is wait to see if anything improves.

He was just executed. There was a story on our news station about how the middle-eastern community around my area (Detroit) are going nuts over it, celebrating in the streets and all that jazz.

Oh I know it was under the Iraqi law. But I don't get why it matters anyhow? So what if it is under a different law than the US, I still feel strongly against the penalty. I'm not saying they should change it, I just don't agree.

However I never really thought about him helping in the installment of the system. It is ironic, and you're right, since he did agree with it while he was in control...

Because anthropology tells us that it isn't right to judge other cultures based on ethnocentric value judgements. Know what that makes you? A racist. Go burn crosses on your own time, honky.

Excuse me, where in my post was I judging their culture? Because I don't agree with a law of theirs I'm a racist? Look I'm not going to go into this huge explanation but I am heavily interested in other cultures and I appreciate them. No where did I say anything about the Iraqis or their country. Oh and I am far from a honky. I'm against the death penalty, period. I don't care what country adopts this law or not, but it is no way my reasons because of their culture.

More honky jive. You gotta wise up, turkey. If you disapprove of the actions of a foreign culture, then you're negatively judging them based on your own perspective.

Incidentally, r you a women?

Ok these last couple of posts help nothing whatsoever, neither does the provoking.


My thoughts on this..Saddam was a bad person, for what he's done, he deserves nothing more than pain and despair. Death I think..too easy, too quick, and doesn't solve a thing, and won't bring back anyone who did die under his feet. He deserves a prison cell in the dark until he naturally dies. Like Lalala, I don't believe in the Death Penalty [This has nothing to do with Islam and Saddam]. From a Judeo-Christian perspective, no one under those two religions has the right to take another life un-naturally, especially people who uphold justice and law. They have no right to play God in who lives and who dies. God himself decreed it himself it was never to be done, no matter how much your enemy has done to you. That's my general look on the death penalty, not a technical outlook on it, so don't give me situations and scenarios or technicalities, it was my general view.

So your general view is that it's more acceptable to torture people than it is to execute them. Sounds like sadism. Tastes like butter.

I just don't like the idea of the death penalty in general. It's not like Iraq is the only country using the death penalty. Sorry, I just don't see this as a cultural issue.

Yes I am.

Where the hell did I say that bucko? Did you interpet 'pain and despair' as torture? If so, you're wrong.

Pain and Despair sound an awful lot like what you'd get from being tortured. If you're thinking of some kind of moral test like God's trial of Job it's foolish to think that he would do the same for anybody else.

Kim Jong Il is still in power, after all, and his father Kim Il Sung lived out his life of oppressive totalitarianism to a peaceful grave. If you think that somebody deserves pain and despair, then the reasonable conclusion is that you think it'd be ok if they were tortured.

Of course, the "Christian" argument is that it's not our place to punish people for their crimes in such a manner. It should be up to God to decide. Yet we punish people and judge them without God for their infractions on a secular daily basis. If someone is deserving of pain and despair, and not death, why shouldn't they be tortured? Barbarism? Please.

Because you're a product of a culture, and whether it's becuase you were influenced by a hippy liberal pacifist one or a pacifist Christian one, you're still making judgements about the death penalty based on a cultural perspective. Therefore, if you think it isn't right that Saddam was executed, then it automatically means that the Iraqis were wrong. The fact that you're a woman also calls your perspective into suspect, because women are categorically more likely to adopt pacifist or liberal views. Your inability to accept reason as an emotional woman could be used as an argument by myself if I was dumb as shit, but you see this whole thing is just a joke to me, including your opinion on the matter. I mean, for God's sake, I'm using racial slurs from the 70's and you're still taking my assertion that you're racist seriously?

To be fair, Brady, I don't believe that Lalala is objecting to the death penalty for geopolitical reasons. Her(?) argument seems more based upon spiritual conviction. And while that dogma is assuredly fueling her convictions, she would likely object identically if someone were put to death on American soil.

But yes, expecting other cultures to conform to your beliefs makes an assumption that both sides derive their belief system from the same source and that one has woefully erred. Objecting to a death penalty is noble enough, but also naive in thinking that these other cultures can be swayed from practices that they truly believe to be just. This is their choice as a people, and though you may not approve, it is best to accept their decision.

Intolerance isn't necessarily racism, but it is often prejudice. And that leads to worse beliefs if unchecked.

One should merely be gracious in acknowledging our right to object in general. Under Hussein's dictatorship, the people didn't even have that.

Also, to be fair on my end, Crash. She never said anything about changing the way they do things in Iraq, she only said that she found the Death Penalty morally revolting.

My definition of pain and despair is more metaphoric, than literal. And Saddam doesn't exactly deserve a free and happy life no? Pain and despair to me would be exhiled to a cell, completly cut off from everyone, including inmates and workers in the prison. The only interaction you would get would be sometimes getting a shower, and food, but it would be rare. I think it would be justice if he was alone until he died, let the silence of the people that he tortured and gave death to ring in his ears until his heart stops.

Now you say that 'It should be up to God to decide. Yet we punish people and judge them without God for their infractions on a secular daily basis.' Well I think we as people should be allowed to carry out justice and law, without there's chaos of course. But I think death..doesn't belong with Justice personally, and neither does Torture, for I am against that too. Torture is inhumane, and shows the darker side of humanity, the only way for humanity to grow is to let go of their lust for violence and vengance.

To be truthful I wasn't sure if you were serious or not. But I decided that maybe you were being serious but because you used Jive and honky (which did make me giggle btw) I thought you were being facetious but at the same time serious...if that even makes sense. lol

And you're right Crash my view is on religious beliefs. Like I said earlier though, I'm not asking for them to change.

Well then, your stance as a conscientious objector is noted. Fair enough.

That's what i'm really afraid of, the insurgents causing more violence and destruction to our soldiers and to their own people out of vengance.

Vengeance for what? Saddam didn't have a cult of personality, his entire regime was based on a You-Scratch-My-Back I'll-Scratch-Yours... or else system. Without a power base, there's nobody who possesses any personal loyalties to Saddam that aren't already openly resisting occupation or shooting up mosques.

If you think solitary confinement is acceptable, then your perspective of pain and despair has gone beyond the metaphorical (if that's even possible?).

Solitary confinement is torture, because you're intentionally causing suffering to an individual via social neglect as an act of punishment.

Psychological means of torture are no less significant than the physical ones. At least with the rack, people were still possessed of sound mind.

Yet you are also advocating solitary confinement, but I've already debunked that notion.

Why is there no justice in death? Is it because the convicted are not granted the opportunity to be punished for the crimes they've committed? Is it not justice that murderers should lose their life, the one thing they took from their victims that can never be given back? The only thing anybody can ever truly possess?

I'm serious in that I think it's important people think about why they are possessed of an opinion. Understanding the nature of perspective is an important part in understanding truth.

That's no reason to kill a man*.

*Not saying Hussein didn't deserve to die.

I dunno, it just seems to me he feels ok with dying. What harm would it be to anyone if he was just kept in a cell 24/7 for the rest of his days. I know I'd rather be dead than that.

According to Wikipedia, he actually had been executed. But that's Wikipedia. You never know.

Edit: Whoa. I didn't realize this page filled up so fast. Ignore this post.

Edit again: In fact, I think I just was stuck on page number four...

Like I said, do you think he should be un-punished for his crimes? Free? He deserves to be punished for what he has done, and I can think of no better punishment than a social exhile from everything.

That's your point of view, to think what I am saying is torture. My point is death is not the answer to anything, and it won't bring back anyone, and it won't solve anything. Do you think his death will make the insurgents go "You know what, they're right...lets bring out our white flags and surrender." No, you kill one saddam, ten more show up. It's a cycle of violence and pain, that will never end, unless someone acts big and ends it. That 'someone' being them or us [The West]. And like i've said, being exhiled from society is something that would be good for everyone. He would be punished for his actions, and basically...thinking about what he did, until he dies naturally. Kinda like permanent Time Out if you will.





Because I don't believe that death is justice, but more like a archaic form of personal vengance on a subminal level. You gain nothing by killing another life. And if you're a christian...holy shit, you commited one of the top ten sins, no matter how much your actions were sincere and 'good for the rest of the world'. I'm not as christian as I used to be, but I think some of those ten laws [the big one being 'thou shall not kill'] should be something the west should embrace.


Random question...are you a righty? *smirk*

News sorces over here have pritty much marked the time of exicution as 6am local time, wether that meens GMT or whatever Iraq uses isn't exactly clear , as is stanard for the Beep.

Or in the Mosaic Law... Which condemned people to death for things like murder, rape, etc... So that "Thou shall not kill" thing doesn't work. Whatever the case, people, don't try to pull out Bible verses out of context and expect them to fly very far.

That's that bullshit.

Whether you lock Saddam away for the rest of his life or kill him, the end result is the same. Might as well go with the speedy execution and be done with him. We're dealing with the kind of people who don't react well to 'someone acting big and ending it.' They only respect overwhelming strength.

On the contrary, death is the ultimate justice. You lose your life, which you can never regain. And "Thou Shalt Not Kill", if you look at the proper context, is actually 'Thou Shalt Not Murder." And yes, there is a difference.

I'm not going to get into a big argument about this here, but show me how Capital Punishment is not really just a long, drawn out premeditated murder done with the approval of the government? There's nothing about it that isn't murder, as it is in no way preemptive. How do you justify that? Keep in mind, unless you kill livestock everyweek to cleanse your sins, don't bother bringing up the Old Testament.

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,767754,00.jpg http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,767745,00.jpg
http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,767749,00.jpg http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,767751,00.jpg

Somewhat graphic..


I still want to see the vid though.

Yes, and that was horrible. I think both religions should be ashamed of that tragedy, but that's just me. Its sad when Religion makes exceptions to certain things, because from a religious standpoint, you can't stay on the fence.



What does that sentence mean? Who's the 'people'? The Arabs? So a speedy death is good and fast....again who are you to say what dies? No one here I think is in that position. BTW what is YOUR political standpoint, because I think political preference has something to do with this topic, especially the way it's going now.

You know exactly who the people I'm talking about are - Islamic fundamentalists.

And I'm a conservative when it comes to foreign policy if you must know.

A cell phone captured the majority of what the major news networks didn't bother showing: link

It's not terribly gruesome (you see him plummet, then nothing, then the "videographer" gets a closeup of Saddam with the noose still around his neck), but between the Islamic chanting and the sheer thought that you're about to watch someone get paralyzed, asphyxiated and just killed in one moment was chilling at least to me.

Now he's finally death, muslims (and I mean terrorist in this case) have another excuse to commit more crimes. You know, all this is totally crazy and remember me the Holy Wars on medieval age. Many times people think we, human race, develop to new goals, but I think we're almost the same on caveman age: fighting for survive and againts other tribes.

I like how Hussein was killed in what looks like a barnyard. How many people were even present?

Just a note: it's generally a bad idea to say what you just did without offending anyone.

Probably about 20.

Death is the quick way out. What he would've gone through being alive in Iraq would've been incomprehensible to his simple death. Now that he's dead, people will start forgetting just like the newer generations don't know about Milosevic. When they're dead, people don't want to know and don't want to care.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...cle2114403.ece

Take that home and chew it.

That is just the kind of bullshit christians have made up to justify war and capital punishment. Personally, I'm not religious at all, but I'm not stupid enough to believe that your god left an asterisk at the end of that commandment. I read that book a few times over in my day. The only distinction between murder and killing is the one we've made up for them.

And I know for certain that kind man from Nazareth would disagree with you. Seeing as it's called CHRISTianity you'd think they'd actually start listening to what that guy said.

Yeah, it's like we make up definitions for words or something. It's almost as if we've filled a whole language full of words we've made up to describe things.

Are you honestly saying that killing someone in war and murdering a man in his sleep are the exact same? Killing/murdering is not defined as 'taking life', you know.

I agree with you. That's like saying that some sicko that kidnaps and murders little children while they walk home from school is equal to a soldier in war killing opposing enemies on the battlefield. There obviously is a difference.

I can't help but notice the fact that you both jumped to the example of a soldier in combat. Jingoism rears its head in the funniest places, doesn't it?

The simple difference between killing and murder is that a murder is perceived to be an unjust killing. When people talk about acts of vengeance, they always use "and then he killed him" instead of "and then he murdered him." More than likely it's because the person telling the story views the subject as a hero figure, and that his victim was deserving of the (more than likely) frontier justice doled out to him.

There's a huge difference between the two, and if it honestly said "thou shalt not kill" in Hebrew (which we know it doesn't) the Jews would have had a significant moral conflict when it came to eradicating every man, woman, and child in Canaan.

The reason Christians launched wars and killed Jews was because they knew there was a difference. From a modern perspective, we think that the pogroms and atrocities perpetrated against Jews were heinous and constitute murder, but from a contemporary Christian perspective, Jews were poisoning wells and hoarding all the money in an age of Mercantilism. It's not really a matter of evil men doing wicked deeds (though many detractors at the time certainly felt so) it's just that nowadays we know better, or are at least supposed to.

I don't see how Saddam's death would have any significant impact on terrorist groups; he wasn't calling out for jihad against the West to the masses, nor was his personality entrenched into terrorist groups. I'd say our killings of actual terrorist leaders had more influence upon terrorists.

http://adweek.blogs.com/photos/uncat.../caveman_1.jpg

Of course not. Maybe you should check again the news, because before diying he has called resistence to kick off all butt soldiers from Irak and sure they'll do. You can say this is nothing, but is a start.

Additional Spam:
It can't be offensive 'cos is the truth, loud and fair. Maybe I should put in context what we live here on Spain, but it's still presents nowadays the idea of recovering the reign of Al-Andalus and I can watch it on TV almost everyday. Specially from people of Al-Qaeda, wich leave their ideas quite fair.

Most of muslims who come here to Spain don't integrate with rest of people. They live their own habits even if they go against law of the country they are. Even more, and this is the funniest part, the country MUST change their laws to fix with them. Does it make sense? You can see proofs of provocation on wearing veil on schools, some years ago with occupation of Perejil or, the last one this week, praying on a cristian church that was mosque on IX century.

The worst part of this, is the new xenophobist feeling that is growing on society, who can't trust them after all.

You're only perpetuating that xenophobic feeling, if you can barely distinguish "Muslim" with "terrorist". I mean, c'mon, let's be reasonable. If I was Muslim, I would be disturbed by Christians who sought my death, too. And I'm not here trying to say, "Muslims have a beautiful faith that has nothing to do with warfare!" Much like Christians, their faith requires religious warfare. However, if you want to make a case for Islam making someone terrorist-prone, be my guest. An everyday Muslim, much like an everday Christian, probably could care less about what his or her religion dictates.I think you're looking into my comment a bit too much. I wasn't advocating anything.

A start of what? People were already blowing up trucks and shrines without Saddam's command. Why would they start caring now?

"Butt soldiers"? Is that codeword for fags?

You didn't have to advocate anything. When it came to issues of death and killing, your first reaction was to justify the actions of men in the field, more than likely a conditioned response due to the patriotic impulse to "support the troops." It's of nobody's particular fault, it's just interesting to see how propaganda shows up.

That picture isn't as graphic as the terrorists chopping that hostage's head off or when there were pictures of Abu Musai Al-Zarkawi (whatever his name is) after he died from the air strike.

It's called "subtle segregation." It perpetrates itself automatically because people prefer to interact with people of their own demographic instead of interacting with those outside of them. It's what causes the sense of "other" within societies based on whatever lines. In High School it was social, and as you move up the scale, it becomes racially or habitually-related.

Illegals don't conform for a number of reasons, not the least of which being that it's impossible for them to conform because they have no legal status.

In the case of Muslim immigrants in Europe, Pakis and such don't operate outside of social circles that are comfortable to them, and this is what causes subtle segregation, because those circles are more often than not based on ethnic lines. When a minority segregates itself from larger society, it by a rule becomes disadvantaged, and because the segregation is perpetuated, so does the poverty. It's how you have 3rd Generation French Moroccans who feel like second class citizens because all parties involved worked to keep each other segregated.

Immigrant minorities are not welcome in countries because they do not make themselves welcome. That is what causes resentment amongst natural-citizens who feel entitled to the native culture.

This isn't like language with Mexicans, though, in the case of Muslims in Europe it comes along much more sobering issues such as child abuse and terrorism.

Europeans have a right to be pissed about Islamism snaking its way into politics, but they also have to understand that they're as much a part of the problem.

Trouble is, these nasty little things called 'opinions' get all muddled up in a whole lot of those distinctions we've made up.

I don't want to sit here and say, "Yes, they're EXACTLY the same," because obviously they aren't. But damnit, if people and their gods are allowing for gray areas when humans kill eachother, then there sure as shit needs to be some more thought on the word "justice".

And what the fuck are you talking about? If the words 'killing' and 'murdering' aren't considered taking life then what do they mean? Has it meant "having a tea party" all this time and I didn't know?

When a country enters a conflict under false pretenses or for reasons that a great deal of it's people feel are unfounded, when many believe there is no justice in the war itself, does that mean all the (religious) individuals in the millitary, the ones actually committing the killing for an unjustified reason are still somehow in the clear with their god? I know you aren't exactly saying that, but you're certainly leaving room for someone else to say it.

If it was true that Jews were poisoning wells and hoarding money, then I can most assuredly see a justification for war. You gotta protect your neck man. Defending oneself is the most valid reason for killing that I can think of. But it seems there are A LOT of other reasons that in my opinion (and hopefully a handful of others) are completely asinine.

I suppose that's all justice is, though... an opinion. I hope my point isn't lost in that. Fuck it, it probably is. But like you said, people should know better.

kill - to deprive of life in any manner; cause the death of; slay.
murder - to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.

First off, don't be a bastard. I know it's the rule around here and whatnot, but I was just pointing out what I thought was obvious. Anyway.

I agree that if we use religious justice as a defining force of our actions, it's pretty disturbing. I'm using simple English, here. To be more specific, killing is 'taking life', murder being more specifically taking life 'inhumanly or barbarously'. Stepping on an ant while on a walk is hardly murder. Keep your definitions in check.

Which completely refutes thousands of years of written and spoken language. Ok.

There's actually no room to say it. Soldiers in the field are justified in killing an enemy combatant because it comes down to simple matters of self-defense. The exception comes in the case of war crimes, which not every US soldier commits, but which should ultimately fall on the shoulders of their superiors, all the way to the top.

First of all, there was never any kind of "war" against the Jews, and second you know that's not true at all. My point is that reason is determined by perspective, and whether what one has done is right or wrong ultimately depends on personal and majority opinion. Nowadays we have a different opinion of Jews, so we think it's wrong to up and kill them for being Jewish.

I don't really get your point at all. Unless you're trying to say that Justice is subjective, and therefore you're right. Which would be retarded.

And why shouldn't they be ignored? If they've conformed to the dominant culture, then they're about as visible as the guy who runs the pumping station.

I'm not sure how they managed to do it, but somehow after no doubt months of preperation into the execution they managed to make Saddam look far more dignified than the thugs in balaclavas taking him to the gallows or the Iraqi government ministers jeering him from the crowd.

It's the beard.

I'm not English, m0ron, so don't fack me up with that sh!t. It's quite understable what I wrote. So, if you can't undetstand it, buy a brain.

Well, back to the topic --> http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world...846511,00.html

It's so hard to remember if The Guardian is a tabloid or not. Can't trust any British publication, it seems.

I'm still not quite understanding why you used "butt soldiers". Your insistence, that you're an illiterate cretin from Spain that doesn't even have the balls to type out "moron", doesn't help my understanding.

Your article is from five years ago and isn't related to the matter at hand. If you're trying to divert attention away from yourself, you're not doing very well.

Nah, I wasn't trying to refute anything, I was just trying to make it a 'grain of salt' kinda thing.

But whatever, I lost my point somewhere in the haze between yesterday and today, so let's say I was merely pointing out that justice is subjective.

In which case... yeah, I'm mildly retarded.

I was hoping somebody wouldn't bring up The Economist. Thanks a lot, Minion. =/

Always a pleasure.

I don't know if this has been posted earlier, but Saddam's execution was caught on tape via camera phone:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tVG5_F5Ado

I find it kind of disturbing that I can easily find an uncensored video of this man being killed. He sure deserved it though...

SADDAM: "Oh my God!"

NUMEROUS PERSONS start praying aloud: "May God protect those who pray for Muhammad and his descendants. Peace be with Muhammad and his followers. Further the arrival of the Mahdi and condemn his enemies!"

A SINGLE MAN shouts: "Muktada! Muktada! Muktada!"

(addressing Shiite leader Muktada al-Sadr)

SADDAM (surprised): "Muktada? This is how you show your bravery as men?"

A SINGLE MAN: "To hell with you!"

SADDAM: "Is this the pride of us Arabs?"

A SINGLE MAN: "Go to hell!"

SADDAM: "The hell that has become of Iraq?"

ANOTHER MAN (probably attourney Munkith a-Farun): "Please, this man is going to be executed. Show some respect, if you please ..."

ANOTHER MAN: "Long live Muhammad Bakir al-Sadr!"

(A relative of Muktada al-Sadr executed in 1980 by the Saddam regime)

SADDAM starts praying the Muslim creed: "I acknowledge that there is no God but God and Muhammad is his ..."

(he can't speak the last word because the executioner has already pulled the lever)

A SINGLE MAN: "The tyrant has fallen! May he rot in hell!"

NUMEROUS PERSONS: "Muhammad be praised!"

ANOTHER MAN: "Let him hang for three minutes!"

ANOTHER MAN: "No, no, step back! Let him hang for eight minutes, don't take him off!"

ANOTHER MAN is starting to pray, but is being interrupted by ANOTHER MAN yelling: "You don't pray for him!"


I translated this from a transcript posted by German news magazine "Der Spiegel" which was construced from witnesses' reports and the inofficial video.

Source: http://www.spiegel.de/politik/auslan...457586,00.html

The latest news is that the execution of Saddam Hussein was being "hijacked" by Shiite radicals.

Have to agree with this. Shameful is the one word that springs to mind regarding the general behaviour of the executioners and observers, but I guess this is what happens.

speaking obviously like a n00b, I would think the big question is what type of retaliation is his death going to bring? Bush said probably the most intelligent thing I've heard him say when he said that this will not bring an end to terrorism. yeah, give him a fuckin miller for that one. it's just going to result in worse terrorist leaders than saddam coming out of the woodwork now

I don't see what they expect; this man led their country like this. I mean, I'm sure it's "undignified" or whatever, but I wonder if they thought that the crowd wasn't going to jeer him at all. I like how they picked the most random numbers they could.

I watched his execution on youtube because I wanted to see if it was the real video. I know he was a terrible man, but he was praying and they dropped him in the middle of his sentence which I wasn't expecting. I heard that after his body was taken down that they danced around it or something along those lines. It sounded like something totally disrespectful, but for someone like him, I guess people felt like he deserved it.