Dan_Dare Posted December 30, 2006 Posted December 30, 2006 I think the events around this are too unstable to call it justified. The trial was a sham, the last thing the country needs is a martyr and the sectarian violence is already horrific. The Iraqis were out for blood, and the international community allowed them to get it on unsound grounds, utterly undermining their attempts at legitimately disposing of Saddam. My only regret over his death is that it should have been a point at which his rule could be drawn under, and a real Iraqi government could take his place. as it is, they have simply fuelled the insane delusions of the insurgency.
Atomic Boo Posted December 30, 2006 Posted December 30, 2006 Well at least he didnt get the death he wanted. When he was in court he asked to be shot because of the type of army man he was However it was not to be. I hope it was painful. That last sentece sounded very mean! I take it back. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6218875.stm it says there's a video but i cant get it to work
Dan_Dare Posted December 30, 2006 Posted December 30, 2006 no need to take it back boo. Saddam was a vicious, depraved **** of a human being. he deserved every moment of pain he ever received.
Tellyn Posted December 30, 2006 Posted December 30, 2006 Interesting fact: Saddam's favourite flavour of crisp was salt and vinegar. Anyway I thought he was supposed to be executed in a few months? Has Iraq gone against that or was it legal?
conzer16 Posted December 30, 2006 Author Posted December 30, 2006 He was sentenced to death over a month ago. Under Iraqi law, anyone sentenced to death has an automatic appeal lasting no more than 30 days. If that appeal fails, they are usually exectuted within the next 30 days. Saddam's execution took everyone by surprise, as he wasn't expected to be executed until the middle of January. We all knew it was coming, but they kind of jumped the gun and just did it.
The Peeps Posted December 30, 2006 Posted December 30, 2006 I don't know if anyone deserves the death sentence, but Saddam certainly was an evil man.
Jack Posted December 30, 2006 Posted December 30, 2006 Spose, but he killed ALOT of people. Its only right he should be killed himself. I don't think it is. You can't pay for justice with blood, and his death accomplishes nothing but turning him into a martyr.
Waylander Posted December 30, 2006 Posted December 30, 2006 I think they should have let Saddam rot in jail for the rest of his life.
DanielTimothy Posted December 30, 2006 Posted December 30, 2006 When is the DVD release? LOL, Your quite the witty bastard aren't you.
weeyellowbloke Posted December 30, 2006 Posted December 30, 2006 I think they should have let Saddam rot in jail for the rest of his life. That would have been a much better resolution in my opinion, but I think he was tried under Iraqi law so there was little chance of that happening. I reckon the sudden rush in the execution was an attempt to hold off attacks from his supporters and martyr status by not having a large build up.
Zechs Merquise Posted December 30, 2006 Posted December 30, 2006 no need to take it back boo. Saddam was a vicious, depraved **** of a human being. he deserved every moment of pain he ever received. The problem is, everyone views the actions of others through their own eyes, and sadly as Westerners, we view Saddam's regime in very negative light due to our beliefs. However, there is more violence, more sectarianism and more terror now in Iraq than there ever was under Saddam's regime. The fact of the matter is that people over there may not have had all the freedoms we enjoy here in Briatin, but they were better off than they are now. The country is now on the brink of civil war. Simply trying to apply our beliefs and values to another country and it's people will never work, and it clearly hasn't here. What's more is that people keep whining on that he needed removing etc etc, well the war was never fought to remove Saddam. The war was fought over a faked dossier on Weapons of Mass Destruction that were never there in the first place. I love the way that our politicians try to re-write history, as if they completed their objectives and done Iraq a good turn. This war was a sham to gain control of oil. What's more who has killed more, Saddam or Bush and Blair, look at the innocent people that have died in Serbia, Afghanistan and Iraq at the their hands. Look at the servicemen who have lost their lives or been wounded fighting these wars.
Emasher Posted December 30, 2006 Posted December 30, 2006 now if only they could only capture binladen
Dan_Dare Posted December 30, 2006 Posted December 30, 2006 The problem is, everyone views the actions of others through their own eyes, and sadly as Westerners, we view Saddam's regime in very negative light due to our beliefs. However, there is more violence, more sectarianism and more terror now in Iraq than there ever was under Saddam's regime. The fact of the matter is that people over there may not have had all the freedoms we enjoy here in Briatin, but they were better off than they are now. The country is now on the brink of civil war. Simply trying to apply our beliefs and values to another country and it's people will never work, and it clearly hasn't here. What's more is that people keep whining on that he needed removing etc etc, well the war was never fought to remove Saddam. The war was fought over a faked dossier on Weapons of Mass Destruction that were never there in the first place. I love the way that our politicians try to re-write history, as if they completed their objectives and done Iraq a good turn. This war was a sham to gain control of oil. What's more who has killed more, Saddam or Bush and Blair, look at the innocent people that have died in Serbia, Afghanistan and Iraq at the their hands. Look at the servicemen who have lost their lives or been wounded fighting these wars. Things are worse now, yes. But that changes nothing about the past. He was a piece of shit, plain and simple. You should avoid sanitising his regime in light of what has happened since.
Zechs Merquise Posted December 30, 2006 Posted December 30, 2006 Things are worse now, yes. But that changes nothing about the past. He was a piece of shit, plain and simple. You should avoid sanitising his regime in light of what has happened since. What nonsense, things must always be put in context. The context of this is that he was deposed, which has created far more problems than it solved, and he was deposed not because the people who deposed him thought he was particularly bad, infact they actually set him up and funded him - much in the same way they have done with many regimes, but because they wanted his oil. And to get the oil they created a load of fairy tales about WMDs, which turned out to be a pack of lies, at which point they then justified the invasion on the grounds that Saddam wasn't a particularly nice guy and the Iraqis needed Western democracy. So, Saddam used brutal force to keep the lid on a Society made up of different factions that would otherwise be slaughtering each other. Democracy is not a one size fits all system that works well with every culture that it's foisted upon. The 'liberating forces of the West' have hardly been met with open arms by the 'liberated Iraqi people' have they?
Max Posted December 30, 2006 Posted December 30, 2006 never dreamt of the day my dad would be in tears seeing him dead! a great day for all us iraqis. this song comes to mind by greenday Ha ha you're dead And I'm so happy In loving memory Of your demise Ha ha you're dead The joke is over You were an asshole And now you're gone As your ship is going down I'll stand by and watch you drown
Dan_Dare Posted December 30, 2006 Posted December 30, 2006 What nonsense, things must always be put in context. The context of this is that he was deposed, which has created far more problems than it solved, and he was deposed not because the people who deposed him thought he was particularly bad, infact they actually set him up and funded him - much in the same way they have done with many regimes, but because they wanted his oil. And to get the oil they created a load of fairy tales about WMDs, which turned out to be a pack of lies, at which point they then justified the invasion on the grounds that Saddam wasn't a particularly nice guy and the Iraqis needed Western democracy. So, Saddam used brutal force to keep the lid on a Society made up of different factions that would otherwise be slaughtering each other. Democracy is not a one size fits all system that works well with every culture that it's foisted upon. The 'liberating forces of the West' have hardly been met with open arms by the 'liberated Iraqi people' have they? My point was that you seem to be justifying totalitarianism in the context of the violence that came after it. I'm not condoning the absurd 'War on Terror' bullshit, far from it. Saddam was nothing more than a vicious minded tyrant who murdered hundreds of his own people. The way he was deposed was far from ideal, granted, but it doesn't change the fact that he deserved to go.
Haden Posted December 30, 2006 Posted December 30, 2006 What nonsense, things must always be put in context. The context of this is that he was deposed, which has created far more problems than it solved, and he was deposed not because the people who deposed him thought he was particularly bad, infact they actually set him up and funded him - much in the same way they have done with many regimes, but because they wanted his oil. And to get the oil they created a load of fairy tales about WMDs, which turned out to be a pack of lies, at which point they then justified the invasion on the grounds that Saddam wasn't a particularly nice guy and the Iraqis needed Western democracy. So, Saddam used brutal force to keep the lid on a Society made up of different factions that would otherwise be slaughtering each other. Democracy is not a one size fits all system that works well with every culture that it's foisted upon. The 'liberating forces of the West' have hardly been met with open arms by the 'liberated Iraqi people' have they? Stability vs Morality?
Zechs Merquise Posted December 30, 2006 Posted December 30, 2006 Stability vs Morality? Indeed, but that is exactly the point. Morality is a subjective thing. The way of life in Western Europe and the States is VERY different to the way of life in countries like Iraq, everything is viewed differently - even life itself. In some Muslim countries women still get stoned to death for committing adultery. What we would see as oppressive and barbaric is normality, and it is not our place to go and tell these people they are wrong. Their circumstances are different to ours, there ways are different, their culture is different. By applying our morals and our democracy to their country, culture and ways of life we haven't helped them. We've simply created an unstable mess where death and suffering is even more commonplace. For true change to take place in a country like Iraq it has to be from the Iraqi people, like it was in Eastern Europe when the Berlin wall fell. What's more, Bush and Blair have done nothing more than replaced one dicator with another. They have put in place a puppet government that dances to their tune, it's not there to serve the Iraqi people, but to serve America's need for oil.
Haver Posted December 30, 2006 Posted December 30, 2006 Did we not get over the oil thing? I thought we got over the oil thing.
Dan_Dare Posted December 30, 2006 Posted December 30, 2006 frankly, your argument is starting to sound like sensationalist teenie politics, Zechs. there's far more to it than 'ZOMG! OIL!'
Haden Posted December 30, 2006 Posted December 30, 2006 Indeed, but that is exactly the point. Morality is a subjective thing. The way of life in Western Europe and the States is VERY different to the way of life in countries like Iraq, everything is viewed differently - even life itself. In some Muslim countries women still get stoned to death for committing adultery. What we would see as oppressive and barbaric is normality, and it is not our place to go and tell these people they are wrong. Their circumstances are different to ours, there ways are different, their culture is different. By applying our morals and our democracy to their country, culture and ways of life we haven't helped them. We've simply created an unstable mess where death and suffering is even more commonplace. For true change to take place in a country like Iraq it has to be from the Iraqi people, like it was in Eastern Europe when the Berlin wall fell. What's more, Bush and Blair have done nothing more than replaced one dicator with another. They have put in place a puppet government that dances to their tune, it's not there to serve the Iraqi people, but to serve America's need for oil. But democracy is surely a manifestation of popular culture? It doesnt nessicarly mean western liberalism look at Hamas and Iran for examples. The fact that a lot of the population voted in the Iraq elections even though it was a dangerous time seems to show that it isn't against their principles. I disagree with your puppet government view that government is now accountable to the Iraqi people which is a lot more than S Hussein was. I dont think you could really argue that S Hussein was a moral man. He may have delivered stability but that stability was given through real politik and brutal oppression. Mass graves are still being found now.
Fierce_LiNk Posted December 30, 2006 Posted December 30, 2006 Well, people should consider following two things before saying it was "good" move: 1) Saddam was still idolized by quite many Iraqians. You can't even imagine how bad the public backslash will be in certain regions. 2) Saddam died as a martyr. This encourages his followers, resulting in more fanatic fighters and more car bombs that will kill innocent civilizians. 3) Iraq is already on the verge of civil war, and last thing that Iraq currently needs is more hostilities. Yeah, I agree with you. I don't think there was any rush to do this. They could have at least backed off on executing him for a few more weeks. I still think they did this to coincide with the Hajj.
Recommended Posts