Forums > Social Discussion > Saddam Hussein
Login/Join to ParticipateGOLD Member
Pirate Pixie Crew Captain
8,428 posts
Location: Wales
Pirate Pixie Crew Captain
8,428 posts
Location: Wales
Posted:
Saddam Hussien has been sentenced to death by hanging. I just heard it on the BBC radio 4 news. It hasn't appeared on their news website yet but I'll give you a link when it does.
I'm not sure there was ever any doubt that the death penalty would be given... I still feel uneasy about it though. I really don't believe in the death penalty, but is it different in cases like this?
https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6117910.stm
This is the web page so far.
EDITED_BY: Skulduggery (1162718478)
Saddam Hussien has been sentenced to death by hanging. I just heard it on the BBC radio 4 news. It hasn't appeared on their news website yet but I'll give you a link when it does.
I'm not sure there was ever any doubt that the death penalty would be given... I still feel uneasy about it though. I really don't believe in the death penalty, but is it different in cases like this?
https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6117910.stm
This is the web page so far.
EDITED_BY: Skulduggery (1162718478)
Feed me Chocolate!!! Feed me NOW!
member
44 posts
Location: Belfast
44 posts
Location: Belfast
Posted:
Great post Coleman
Written by: coleman
i'm not in agreement wholly with either rob or ado-p here.
i personally do not believe in a universal 'right' and 'wrong' or 'good' and 'evil'.
as such, i would argue that there are degrees of inhumanity, but these degrees are specific to each person - if you don't feel any guilt for an act after you have committed it, it is not inhuman to your mind.
most days, i don't feel guilty about walking past homeless people and not donating my time/money/food to them.
i would concede to ado-p's standpoint that this might be seen as an inhuman act by some and it is my own moral/ethical code that lets me go on thinking that it is not inhuman (or perhaps only 'a bit inhuman' as someone speaking from rob's standpoint might contend).
but in national and international societies, there are things called 'laws' that help to mark out moral lines for all of us to follow.
many laws are about stating what 'inhuman' (or 'non-selfless') acts are 'acceptable' and 'unacceptable' to the society as a whole.
in many cases, its not illegal to kill someone in self-defense.
i would venture that most people, if they were protecting themselves/their loved ones from an attacker intent on killing or seriously harming them and they accidentally killed that attacker, would not consider their act to be an inhuman one.
but killing another person *is* inhuman in most people's books - and if there truly are no degrees of inhumanity, the circumstances of the inhuman act should not even matter.
does the commital of the inhuman act of 'killing another person' not make the defender as bad as other killers (or proxy-killers cos i doubt bush has ever shot someone) such as bush or saddam?
is not the ordering of the deaths of people as much of an inhuman act as actually carrying out those killings?
and if so, why is it just saddam that is being put to death?
where are the people who pushed the button on those gas chambers...?
and on that note, i hereby submit this interesting article
cole. x
Great post Coleman
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Pooh-Bah
1,762 posts
Location: York University, United Kingdom
Posted:
I think "inhumanity" is a misleading word.
Humans are the only people who deliberately kill billions of their own species. Humans are the only species that commonly rape, torture and abuse members of their own family.
Sometimes I feel that to be called "inhuman" is a compliment in its implications.
I feel that if you execute someone for a crime then it acts as a deterrent for other people considering committing the same crimes. That's why I'm not sure if it would be better to have the death penalty for murderers/rapists instead of politicians. After all, politicians don't really have much to fear from justice, do they?
I think "inhumanity" is a misleading word.
Humans are the only people who deliberately kill billions of their own species. Humans are the only species that commonly rape, torture and abuse members of their own family.
Sometimes I feel that to be called "inhuman" is a compliment in its implications.
I feel that if you execute someone for a crime then it acts as a deterrent for other people considering committing the same crimes. That's why I'm not sure if it would be better to have the death penalty for murderers/rapists instead of politicians. After all, politicians don't really have much to fear from justice, do they?
After much consideration, I find that the view is worth the asphyxiation.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
BRONZE Member
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posted:
well,
there are lemmings that jump off cliffs, but maybe suicide does not count
rape is a act of power in the animal world. i've seen guinea pigs get raped by other pigs. a dog humping another is a dominance thing
animals do torture or abuse each other. have you seen how runts of a litter are treated. or if it percieved as a problem to the community, i've seen mice and rats kill one of their own
ants will kill those that don't belong in their territory
wolves and horses will fight and sometimes kill an intruder
well,
there are lemmings that jump off cliffs, but maybe suicide does not count
rape is a act of power in the animal world. i've seen guinea pigs get raped by other pigs. a dog humping another is a dominance thing
animals do torture or abuse each other. have you seen how runts of a litter are treated. or if it percieved as a problem to the community, i've seen mice and rats kill one of their own
ants will kill those that don't belong in their territory
wolves and horses will fight and sometimes kill an intruder
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
GOLD Member
Pirate Ninja
3,882 posts
Location: Galway/Ireland
Pirate Ninja
3,882 posts
Location: Galway/Ireland
Posted:
Check out ducks and dolphins dude... and a tiger will happily rip out your throat and not even eat you.... o we judge them by our notions or theirs?
Written by: Sethis
I think "inhumanity" is a misleading word.
Humans are the only people who deliberately kill billions of their own species. Humans are the only species that commonly rape, torture and abuse members of their own family.
Check out ducks and dolphins dude... and a tiger will happily rip out your throat and not even eat you.... o we judge them by our notions or theirs?
Love is the law.
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Posted:
On lemmings
Good ole nature, red in tooth and claw, but not without it's romantic appeal.
On lemmings
Good ole nature, red in tooth and claw, but not without it's romantic appeal.
BRONZE Member
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posted:
ok....i shall find some other mass suicide or murders-i swear ants do something like that or termites
ok....i shall find some other mass suicide or murders-i swear ants do something like that or termites
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
good to have you back, Sethis 
I have to disagree, that humans are the only species killing each others, raping, torturing, etc. Certainly the degree in which man(kind) to conduct any act is different to those of the animal kingdom. Certainly IF we assume humans to act consciously - and animals are not - the act itself gets a different quality, then we might have to define "consciousness", maybe.
But hey, the fairy tale of "bad" human "good" animal has long faded (along with "good" child/ "bad" adult, "good" Palestinian/ "bad" Israeli, "good" mothers/ "bad" dad's and loads of other stereotypes, no?
Well yes and no. At least IMHO.
In some countries we do (still) have death penalty, still people kill people. We have all kinds of penalties for all kinds of crimes, yet people continue to commit them. Jails are full with people, who thought that they wouldn't get caught, or did it for various other reasons. Therefore it's deterring to a certain degree only.
Political Immunity has it's reasons and I guess it's okay - unless abused. Saddam Hussein's case is completely different, my guess is that he didn't enjoy immunity for a very long time already. But the lesson is that only if you mess with the USand a few other countries, you have to fear loosing immunity - OR if you get out of office (Donald Rumsfield faces criminal charges in Germany)
However, I would not call it "inhuman", if one human kills another. I'm willing to go as far to say, that it can also happen to be an act of mercy... The term "Euthanasia" might ring a bell? Very human (whatever that means) AND very INhuman - depending... A very perverted form has been "practiced" during the Nazi regime.
Yet: When it comes to death penalty - I think it is a completely inapropriate tool to teach anything, or even to deter others.
The attempt to prosecute people with faith - in order to teach a lesson, or to try deterring other people with similar belief systems and raise awareness that their action was wrong (by using death penalty) - is stupid.
We can only give them time to ponder. If we kill them, they only get what they are looking for: Deliverance.
To me, Death penalty is ignorance and denial - nothing more.
Saddam is not Escobar. Jail is NOT fun - especially not outside "Western Civilisation"... and especially not if it's really for life.
But isn't it funny how the current "ultimate evil" even turns otherwise peaceloving hippies into a bloodthirsty savaging mob...
good to have you back, Sethis Written by: Sethis
I think "inhumanity" is a misleading word.
Humans are the only people who deliberately kill billions of their own species. Humans are the only species that commonly rape, torture and abuse members of their own family.
Sometimes I feel that to be called "inhuman" is a compliment in its implications.
I have to disagree, that humans are the only species killing each others, raping, torturing, etc. Certainly the degree in which man(kind) to conduct any act is different to those of the animal kingdom. Certainly IF we assume humans to act consciously - and animals are not - the act itself gets a different quality, then we might have to define "consciousness", maybe.
But hey, the fairy tale of "bad" human "good" animal has long faded (along with "good" child/ "bad" adult, "good" Palestinian/ "bad" Israeli, "good" mothers/ "bad" dad's and loads of other stereotypes, no?
Written by: Sethis
I feel that if you execute someone for a crime then it acts as a deterrent for other people considering committing the same crimes. That's why I'm not sure if it would be better to have the death penalty for murderers/rapists instead of politicians. After all, politicians don't really have much to fear from justice, do they?
Well yes and no. At least IMHO.
In some countries we do (still) have death penalty, still people kill people. We have all kinds of penalties for all kinds of crimes, yet people continue to commit them. Jails are full with people, who thought that they wouldn't get caught, or did it for various other reasons. Therefore it's deterring to a certain degree only.
Political Immunity has it's reasons and I guess it's okay - unless abused. Saddam Hussein's case is completely different, my guess is that he didn't enjoy immunity for a very long time already. But the lesson is that only if you mess with the USand a few other countries, you have to fear loosing immunity - OR if you get out of office (Donald Rumsfield faces criminal charges in Germany)
However, I would not call it "inhuman", if one human kills another. I'm willing to go as far to say, that it can also happen to be an act of mercy... The term "Euthanasia" might ring a bell? Very human (whatever that means) AND very INhuman - depending... A very perverted form has been "practiced" during the Nazi regime.
Yet: When it comes to death penalty - I think it is a completely inapropriate tool to teach anything, or even to deter others.
The attempt to prosecute people with faith - in order to teach a lesson, or to try deterring other people with similar belief systems and raise awareness that their action was wrong (by using death penalty) - is stupid.
We can only give them time to ponder. If we kill them, they only get what they are looking for: Deliverance.
To me, Death penalty is ignorance and denial - nothing more.
Saddam is not Escobar. Jail is NOT fun - especially not outside "Western Civilisation"... and especially not if it's really for life.
But isn't it funny how the current "ultimate evil" even turns otherwise peaceloving hippies into a bloodthirsty savaging mob...
the best smiles are the ones you lead to 
BRONZE Member
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posted:
wow tom i think we agree on most of that
wow tom i think we agree on most of that
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
GOLD Member
Pirate Ninja
3,882 posts
Location: Galway/Ireland
Pirate Ninja
3,882 posts
Location: Galway/Ireland
Posted:
Ah the mob *le sigh*
Written by: FireTom
But isn't it funny how the current "ultimate evil" even turns otherwise peaceloving hippies into a bloodthirsty savaging mob...
Ah the mob *le sigh*
Love is the law.
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
Yes, "the mob"... *countersigh*
Not as in
Non-Https Image Link
but as in
Non-Https Image Link
Just ponder for a sec: What is the difference between demonstrators in the streets of Teheran or elsewhere, demanding cartoonists to get beheaded, or the valued HoPper demanding Saddam Hussein to get hanged - from behind his screen?
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1163498792)
Yes, "the mob"... *countersigh*
Not as in
Non-Https Image Link
but as in
Non-Https Image Link
Just ponder for a sec: What is the difference between demonstrators in the streets of Teheran or elsewhere, demanding cartoonists to get beheaded, or the valued HoPper demanding Saddam Hussein to get hanged - from behind his screen?
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1163498792)
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
BRONZE Member
enthusiast
363 posts
Location: manchester uk
enthusiast
363 posts
Location: manchester uk
Posted:
well the diffrence is the danish cartoonists drew a picture in newspaper that some people were offended by, saddam murdered torchered and percicuted hundreds of thousends of men women and children as well as starting two wars that got over 2 million people killed ontop of that original figure of several hundred thousend. if saddams only crime was drawing an offensive cartoon i dout anyone (well any hoPers anyway, im sure some muslims would want to behead him) would even want him punished at all infact he'ed probly have amnasty international gunning for him. the crimes of the two are hardly comparable!!!
EDITED_BY: robnunchucks (1163688593)
Written by: FireTom
Just ponder for a sec: What is the difference between demonstrators in the streets of Teheran or elsewhere, demanding cartoonists to get beheaded, or the valued HoPper demanding Saddam Hussein to get hanged - from behind his screen?
well the diffrence is the danish cartoonists drew a picture in newspaper that some people were offended by, saddam murdered torchered and percicuted hundreds of thousends of men women and children as well as starting two wars that got over 2 million people killed ontop of that original figure of several hundred thousend. if saddams only crime was drawing an offensive cartoon i dout anyone (well any hoPers anyway, im sure some muslims would want to behead him) would even want him punished at all infact he'ed probly have amnasty international gunning for him. the crimes of the two are hardly comparable!!!
EDITED_BY: robnunchucks (1163688593)
My nunchucks vital statictics
weight: 500g
handle lenght: 16 inches
chain length: 2 inches
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
Maybe...
It's all in the eye of the beholder... ?!
To some blasphemy is a sin - much more than killing people...
Who are we to judge?
And who deserves to get killed? The one who pulled the trigger, or the one who ordered to pull the trigger.... ?
Maybe...
It's all in the eye of the beholder... ?!
To some blasphemy is a sin - much more than killing people...
Who are we to judge?
And who deserves to get killed? The one who pulled the trigger, or the one who ordered to pull the trigger.... ?
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
SILVER Member
the 1337 poier
346 posts
Location: england
the 1337 poier
346 posts
Location: england
Posted:
i know that my statistic was wrong and i based the number on something i thought i had read in this forum but i was probably wrong but it doesnt matter, as stalin once said you kill one person it is an attrocity, you kill one million people it is a statistic.
Written by: robnunchucksWritten by: the_poier
I dont agree that sadam should be killed or any other human being, and if you do kill him you would have to kill Bush and every other leader for that matter, as 200 deaths to your own people is alot better than thousands done by someone interfering with other peoples politics just because they want some oil.
if you think sadam killed 200 people you odviously know very little about the situation though the exact figure will probly never be know it was closer to 600,000 - 1.2 million. iraqies in a contry of 22 million people.
and while i agree bush is no saint you should be carfull about geting caught up in the anti-bush feaver while america may have killed ALOT of inocent civilens the US did at least make an effort to avoid colataral damage.
for example they never gassed entire villiges of men, women and children because of there race.
after riseing to power bush didn't force the people left from the old goverment to execute there comrades who refused to support him.
bush doesn't have his own supporters terrifyed that them and there familys will be executed for disobaying him.
bush never instituted public executions by beheading of those he concidered sinful mostly women accused of prostituion to bolseter the religous faith of the nation.
and while the storys of the methods used at gentanimo bay are certainly not plesent the acts of sadam make them look like primary school bulling as sadam used methods such as fingernail-extracting, eye-gouging, genital-shocking, bucket-drowning and secret police rapeing prisoners' wives and daughters to force confessions and denunciations.
while i dont beleave in the death penelty i find it moraly difficult to suggest any other punishment that comes close to matching his crimes.
as for bush im no fan of him and i for one think the world would be better if he never gained power but to compaire him to sadam is simply rediculus
i know that my statistic was wrong and i based the number on something i thought i had read in this forum but i was probably wrong but it doesnt matter, as stalin once said you kill one person it is an attrocity, you kill one million people it is a statistic.
ive got a fuzzbox and im not afraid to use it
R.I.P. gayfest
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
I repeat my query:
Who is to be punished? The one who pulls the trigger, or the one who ordered to pull the trigger?
"Saddam killed xxxx million of people!"... pretty busy man he must have been...
I repeat my query:
Who is to be punished? The one who pulls the trigger, or the one who ordered to pull the trigger?
"Saddam killed xxxx million of people!"... pretty busy man he must have been...
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
BRONZE Member
enthusiast
363 posts
Location: manchester uk
enthusiast
363 posts
Location: manchester uk
Posted:
the_poier fair enough we all make mistakes from time to time but it does matter if he killed 200 or 500,000 people remember that stalin only said that to ilustrate how you can get away with mass murder and not be held up as a dispicable monster. by not distingusing between 200 or 500,000 your helping people like saddam and stalin get away with it. which was stalins point.
FireTom yes he was a busy man and in answer to your query both should be punished however there is no golden answer to that question the degree to which both should be punished depends very much in the individual circumstances of the situation. but i'll have a go anyways i would argue that in iraq most of the blame should be placed with saddam people who disobayed him were executed along with there familys. people beneath him would have been given a choice between there lifes and there familys lifes or the people they were ordered to kill the only person in the equation who could have prevented the acts easly and without fear of reprisals was saddam. So i would say most of the blame rests with him
to ilustrate this point you odvious are not a bad person now suppose someone broke into your house and held you and your family at gun point before pulling a stranger off the street and saying beat this person death or i will gun you and your family down. Then find someone else to kill this person. what would you do? though a difficult choice you would proberly kill the person to save your family as your refusal to coperate would not ultimately save him just delay his death (assumeing of course you realy did have no other options)
in that situation who should be punished you or the man that broke into your house? which of you is the bad person?
EDITED_BY: robnunchucks (1164044225)
the_poier fair enough we all make mistakes from time to time but it does matter if he killed 200 or 500,000 people remember that stalin only said that to ilustrate how you can get away with mass murder and not be held up as a dispicable monster. by not distingusing between 200 or 500,000 your helping people like saddam and stalin get away with it. which was stalins point.
FireTom yes he was a busy man and in answer to your query both should be punished however there is no golden answer to that question the degree to which both should be punished depends very much in the individual circumstances of the situation. but i'll have a go anyways i would argue that in iraq most of the blame should be placed with saddam people who disobayed him were executed along with there familys. people beneath him would have been given a choice between there lifes and there familys lifes or the people they were ordered to kill the only person in the equation who could have prevented the acts easly and without fear of reprisals was saddam. So i would say most of the blame rests with him
to ilustrate this point you odvious are not a bad person now suppose someone broke into your house and held you and your family at gun point before pulling a stranger off the street and saying beat this person death or i will gun you and your family down. Then find someone else to kill this person. what would you do? though a difficult choice you would proberly kill the person to save your family as your refusal to coperate would not ultimately save him just delay his death (assumeing of course you realy did have no other options)
in that situation who should be punished you or the man that broke into your house? which of you is the bad person?
EDITED_BY: robnunchucks (1164044225)
My nunchucks vital statictics
weight: 500g
handle lenght: 16 inches
chain length: 2 inches
110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
3,149 posts
Location: London
3,149 posts
Location: London
Posted:
Military leaders are responsible for the actions of those acting upon their orders.
Written by: FireTom
I repeat my query:
Who is to be punished? The one who pulls the trigger, or the one who ordered to pull the trigger?
"Saddam killed xxxx million of people!"... pretty busy man he must have been...
Military leaders are responsible for the actions of those acting upon their orders.
"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
Rob: please use ".,!?" Hard to read your posts.
We had the problem in Germany after East and West got re-united. Soldiers who were working at the border were trialled, because they shot people who tried to flee the country. Very tricky, because at some point the court said: "you had to disobey the order for humanitarian reasons" i.e. "you could have shot over their heads"
Now IF Saddam is to be held responsible for giving such orders: how about Ronald Reagan and the other US presidents who supported Saddam with intelligence and weapons. Saddam started a war against Iran, 2 Million casualties... This war was initiated also because the US wanted it.
If we're talking about responsibility, we should follow the thread to the very start, shouldn't we?
Rob: please use ".,!?" Hard to read your posts.
We had the problem in Germany after East and West got re-united. Soldiers who were working at the border were trialled, because they shot people who tried to flee the country. Very tricky, because at some point the court said: "you had to disobey the order for humanitarian reasons" i.e. "you could have shot over their heads"
Now IF Saddam is to be held responsible for giving such orders: how about Ronald Reagan and the other US presidents who supported Saddam with intelligence and weapons. Saddam started a war against Iran, 2 Million casualties... This war was initiated also because the US wanted it.
If we're talking about responsibility, we should follow the thread to the very start, shouldn't we?
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
3,149 posts
Location: London
3,149 posts
Location: London
Posted:
Responsibility as you point out is a tricky business.
"Are we not all responsible for not stopping what has occurred?"
well yeah but no
It's one reason military\governmental\corporate organisations have a clear chain of command (usually so responsibility can be fobbed off on someone just below the person actually responsible).
Saddam ordered the poison gas attack on Halabja.
Reagan may be partly 'responsible' for Saddam's actions, but Reagan never directly ordered several hundred-several thousand (differing estimates) men women and children of his own civilian population be slaughtered in a particularly horrible fashion. An important distinction I'd say.
Halabja Gas Attack report from Human Rights Watch - don't read this unless you want to feel upset
Responsibility as you point out is a tricky business.
"Are we not all responsible for not stopping what has occurred?"
well yeah but no
It's one reason military\governmental\corporate organisations have a clear chain of command (usually so responsibility can be fobbed off on someone just below the person actually responsible).
Saddam ordered the poison gas attack on Halabja.
Reagan may be partly 'responsible' for Saddam's actions, but Reagan never directly ordered several hundred-several thousand (differing estimates) men women and children of his own civilian population be slaughtered in a particularly horrible fashion. An important distinction I'd say.
Halabja Gas Attack report from Human Rights Watch - don't read this unless you want to feel upset
"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
Simian: I disagree - US presidents supported Saddam Hussein (amongst others, who were slaughtering people) with clear knowledge what the money/ intelligence/ weaponry was gonna be used for. Even Osama Bin Laden was supported by the US government.
Therefore (if measured with a strong ethical background) they share responsibility for what has occurred - especially in the case of Saddam Hussein. He would never have gone to war with Iran, if not with US support.
You ever heard the expression: "Winners justice"?
Simian: I disagree - US presidents supported Saddam Hussein (amongst others, who were slaughtering people) with clear knowledge what the money/ intelligence/ weaponry was gonna be used for. Even Osama Bin Laden was supported by the US government.
Therefore (if measured with a strong ethical background) they share responsibility for what has occurred - especially in the case of Saddam Hussein. He would never have gone to war with Iran, if not with US support.
You ever heard the expression: "Winners justice"?
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
3,149 posts
Location: London
3,149 posts
Location: London
Posted:
I'm a little puzzled about what you're disagreeing about.
Are you saying Saddam is not responsible for the deaths that he ordered?
Yes, that's all true. But how is it relevant? Saddam isn't on trial for starting/fighting the war, or the loss of lives of those who fought in the war, etc. You can get away with that kind of thing when you run a country.
Saddam has been found guilty of crimes against humanity for his attempted genocide during the war against Iran.
i fail to see why you seem to be saying that Ronald Reagan is equally responsible for the deaths of the Kurds.
Incidentally, i don't believe Saddam should be executed.
a) i feel very strongly that sanctioned murder by a justice system is inherently wrong.
b) i suspect that his execution will cause further violence.
I'm a little puzzled about what you're disagreeing about.
Are you saying Saddam is not responsible for the deaths that he ordered?
Written by: Firetom
US presidents supported Saddam Hussein (amongst others, who were slaughtering people) with clear knowledge what the money/ intelligence/ weaponry was gonna be used for. Even Osama Bin Laden was supported by the US government.
Yes, that's all true. But how is it relevant? Saddam isn't on trial for starting/fighting the war, or the loss of lives of those who fought in the war, etc. You can get away with that kind of thing when you run a country.
Saddam has been found guilty of crimes against humanity for his attempted genocide during the war against Iran.
i fail to see why you seem to be saying that Ronald Reagan is equally responsible for the deaths of the Kurds.
Incidentally, i don't believe Saddam should be executed.
a) i feel very strongly that sanctioned murder by a justice system is inherently wrong.
b) i suspect that his execution will cause further violence.
"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
Simian: Saddam killed Kurds (amongst other crimes against humanity) and even though this was known to western politicians, he still got supported.
How can one claim to have supported him "only in the war against Iran but not in the genocide against the Kurds"?
IMHO if one goes to bed with dogs, one wakes up with fleas...
Wouldn't you agree?
Simian: Saddam killed Kurds (amongst other crimes against humanity) and even though this was known to western politicians, he still got supported.
How can one claim to have supported him "only in the war against Iran but not in the genocide against the Kurds"?
IMHO if one goes to bed with dogs, one wakes up with fleas...
Wouldn't you agree?
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
110% MONKEY EVERY TIME ALL THE TIME JUST CANT STOP THE MONKEY
3,149 posts
Location: London
3,149 posts
Location: London
Posted:
Yes I would agree with all that.
I still hold Saddam to be responsible for the acts of genocide he ordered. Culpability of western politicians is far more tenuous.
If I choose to help someone out in some way, even though they're killing people, that makes me an accomplice, and a nasty person. But surely the person who decides to kill the people is the one mainly responsible for their deaths.
i'm still unsure if we're actually disagreeing about something here, but your posts seem to indicate you think western politicians are the ones "to blame" for atrocities when they had no motivation to cause them, and Saddam was actually the one with executive power who initated them. This seems a bit of a stretch.
Yes I would agree with all that.
I still hold Saddam to be responsible for the acts of genocide he ordered. Culpability of western politicians is far more tenuous.
If I choose to help someone out in some way, even though they're killing people, that makes me an accomplice, and a nasty person. But surely the person who decides to kill the people is the one mainly responsible for their deaths.
i'm still unsure if we're actually disagreeing about something here, but your posts seem to indicate you think western politicians are the ones "to blame" for atrocities when they had no motivation to cause them, and Saddam was actually the one with executive power who initated them. This seems a bit of a stretch.
"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."
BRONZE Member
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posted:
i think that it is whether or not they can be held responsible as well, they had plenty of motivation economically and politically
iran was not cooperating so they backed iraq, now iraq took the inch and went a mile
i think that it is whether or not they can be held responsible as well, they had plenty of motivation economically and politically
iran was not cooperating so they backed iraq, now iraq took the inch and went a mile
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
Simian - I am certain that we do not disagree on anything here... We both want to see Saddam serving life, instead of taking the "easy way out", we both think that western politicians' responsibilities are very and should be under review - maybe even with consequences...
Saddam shouldn't get away, but he's also a pawn - a very nasty one that is...
Faih: I am not certain whether I get your post, but you are right that Iran did not cooperate and was therefore dragged to war with Iraq...
This phrase I really do no understand:
Simian - I am certain that we do not disagree on anything here... We both want to see Saddam serving life, instead of taking the "easy way out", we both think that western politicians' responsibilities are very
and should be under review - maybe even with consequences...Saddam shouldn't get away, but he's also a pawn - a very nasty one that is...
Faih: I am not certain whether I get your post, but you are right that Iran did not cooperate and was therefore dragged to war with Iraq...
This phrase I really do no understand:
Written by: faithinfire
now iraq took the inch and went a mile
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
BRONZE Member
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posted:
we set them up with technology and money in return for fighting the then-big-bad, and since have run with that and become the current-big-bad
i don't care what you say about wmd. the geneocide happened and hussein ran with what was given and did whatever he felt would benefit him after he started taking over
we set them up with technology and money in return for fighting the then-big-bad, and since have run with that and become the current-big-bad
i don't care what you say about wmd. the geneocide happened and hussein ran with what was given and did whatever he felt would benefit him after he started taking over
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
The deed is done
Past years resolved
May his soul find mercy and deliverance
The deed is done
Past years resolved
May his soul find mercy and deliverance
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
BRONZE Member
Insert Champagne Here
13,215 posts
Location: without class distinction, Australia
Insert Champagne Here
13,215 posts
Location: without class distinction, Australia
Posted:
I think it's a pity they executed him before he could be tried for EVERYTHING he should have been tried for.
I think it's a pity they executed him before he could be tried for EVERYTHING he should have been tried for.
i would have changed ***** to phallus, and claire to petey Petey
Rougie: but that's what I'm doing here
Arnwyn: what letting me adjust myself in your room?..don't you dare quote that on HoP...
SILVER Member
Tosser
1,712 posts
Location: Bristol,UK
Tosser
1,712 posts
Location: Bristol,UK
Posted:
Even having only partial knowledge of the atrocities he has committed, I feel shocked having seen this this morning.
Lets hope it serves at some catalyst for resolution to the ongoing mightmare that is Iraq at the moment.
Even having only partial knowledge of the atrocities he has committed, I feel shocked having seen this this morning.
Lets hope it serves at some catalyst for resolution to the ongoing mightmare that is Iraq at the moment.
BRONZE Member
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Geek-enviro-hippy priest
1,858 posts
Location: Diss, Norfolk, United Kingdom
Posted:
I am far too angery to post anything too long, but lets just say for now that I wish he wasn't dead.
I'm waiting for the Bush trial to start.
I am far too angery to post anything too long, but lets just say for now that I wish he wasn't dead.
I'm waiting for the Bush trial to start.
There's too many home fires burning and not enough trees
SILVER Member
Momma Bear
4,525 posts
Location: Telford, Shrops, United Kingdom
Momma Bear
4,525 posts
Location: Telford, Shrops, United Kingdom
Posted:
If we're going to hang Saddam, let's hang Osama, Bush, Blair. all of them
Why not!? let's go crazy!
If we're going to hang Saddam, let's hang Osama, Bush, Blair. all of them
Why not!? let's go crazy! Hoppers are angels who lift us to our feet when our wings have trouble remembering how to fly.
© 1998 - 2025 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com