Staredit Network

Several weeks ago his entire family was kidnapped and held hostage by an "anonymous" group. Judging that they were never returned, the group might have had some influence in this decision.

Heh Ermac we had a right to go into Afganistan I don't dont in what country you live in, but if you were powerful enough to stick up for yourself and one of your national icons were destroyed you would probably go to war with them too. Even if a government is isolationalist lives will change that. USA was isolationalist before WW1, but when the Lustitania was sunk we got pretty pissed at the Germans or do you think the USA attacking the Germans in WW1 was wrong too? Or even in WW2.

Any country who massacres another country of a thousand people. Thats a pretty good reason to go to war.

I partially agree with you, I wouldn't go so far as to say the death penatly is barbaric but I do not support it. I remember I did a research project on the death penalty... that was about the time I stopped supporting it.



In fact, almost every major, credible study conducted has shown that capital punishment to be more expensive than life in prision (in the U.S), mostly caused by the legthly appeals process. Adding to the cost, capital trails entail more pre-trial preparation time, more attorneys, longer jury selections, more expert witnesses, and a heightened level of due process. They are 3 to 5 times longer, and the defendant is less likely to simply plead guilty to avoid a trial if there is a chance of being executed.

Really, I could imagine that the prisons in Iraq to be extremely bad. Life in one of those would be a great punishment, if they can be sure that there will be no successful escape attempts.

What that article says about Saddam seemed to having "a small smile of triumph on his face." Kinda scares me...

Well he has already been sentenced so we dont need to worry about that lengthy process and everyone knows Saddam did it and there is already concrete proof. Like the president isnt being watched to know he did a crime. =/

The reason why executing Saddam is the best thing for the stability of Iraq (touching wood here) is because, like Louis XVI in France, he is a talisman for the old regime, about which supporters of it can gather.

Imprisonment means that he has a chance to rise again, which is something that simply cannot be allowed to happen. I feel sorry for him because most of the excesses of his regime were caused by his sons, but in the eyes of the new regime he's too dangerous to be allowed to live.

I love the way you put it Captain thats the way I wanted to put it but im not that good with words. Though I dont feel sorry him. I dont feel sorry for his sons either its a shame they could not live to face justice.

If he were in prison, there would be no rise again, the only rising could be of his few still alive followers who could start a new rigeme though msot of his followers that are still alive are very low in powers so they wouldnt know how to run a new grouping and it would be unstable, then the U.S. military could crush it once again only easier than before.

I would first sentance him to be poked by a stick for 40 years AND THEN HUNG.

Yes, I think that something that he would not like for a long time would be more affective then just being killed within a couple seconds. DO you even feel pain anymore?

I'm torn about this issue. While I think that the death penalty is barbaric and that it will end up giving people what they want (hey, look, a faster way to go to heaven!), I think that if we leave him alive, a slew of kidnappings could occur with the intent of releasing Saddam from jail. As we all know, the United States doesn't "deal" with terrorists, so it would be so many more lives lost. It's impossible to predict the repercussions of executing or not executing Saddam Hussein so we will never really know if we made the correct choice.



I would be one to argue against the United State's entrance into World War I. Germany placed ads in United States papers saying that they completely intended to destroy the Lusitania and thus should not go on it. Nevertheless, people from the United States, thinking that they could go onto a ship of a belligerent nature without negative repercussions, went on it anyways. I think that the Lusitania should be regarded as incentive to enter the war on the side of the Central Powers, as Britain was carrying munitions and other supplies of war in the cargo hold of the Lusitania without letting the passengers know. So essentially they were using the people of the United States as human shields.

I also think it was unfair that Britain could blockade Germany all they wanted, even after the armistice had been signed, yet Germany could not destroy British ships using the only weapons they had available. The truth is that the American people and government had a vicious double standard and really weren't neutral at all.

You won't find me questioning the right of the United States to declare war on Germany in World War II, as they declared it on us. However, we chose sides in World War II long before we actually entered it. We withheld fuel, which the Japanese desperately needed, in order to cripple their war machine so I do not find it suprising that the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. I view it as a reaction to the "neutral" policies of the United States as well as an attempt to quickly cripple us and get us out of the war. Our lend-lease policy as well as a couple other treaties that I don't remember the names of practically declared our allegiance to the Allies before we entered World War II.

Killing the prick is WAY to fast for him, or anyone that comits a crime that our courts deside that they need to die. We need torcher. Make them want to die, then let them live. Not only will the person never do that again, others will hear of it, and they will think twice about killing anyone. With mass murderers, they deserve to fell the pain of every person that he/she killed. Meaning that I would torcher them all the way up till the point of death, bring them back, let them heal, and do it all over again, untill they are dead, or they have felt the pain of every person they have killed. THEN would I let them sit in jail for the rest of ther days. That is IF they survive the torcher. THAT would be a sutibule way of taking care of monsters like that. Better yet, make it a public show!! Not only will the person be in and unfathomable amount of pain, but everyone else can see what we do to people like that. and the quitly or not question? WHO CARES?!?!?!? Aparently the "guilty" person could not come up with a good enought excuse on why they are on trail.

But thats just me, I'm a very sick and twisted person.....

You make a strong point, I was 100% sure that they made the wrong decision about killing him, you have swayed my idea on this issue a little. Though I still think it was wrong, I believe that there very possibly could be some mass of kidnapping's and possibly ending in execution for not giving them Saddam, though I think we could send out some ops to take care of it, it would cause some issues for the U.S. that we really dont need.

McAfee I really hate your post, and killing Saddam will only speed his way to hell. Maybe not in the eyes of the Muslims but in nearly all christians. Though its a bad way to kill someone and say your going to hell to them, but were spossed to keep religion out of the practices of our government I'm not shure if the Iraqi constitution includes religion or not though its not like many people listen to it.

About WWI regardless if we entered favoring the Germans or the Allies it was still better to get the war done with. If Germany conquered France I don't think they would have done anything nice to the French either. Though I can't say what they would have done, and our people favor the French and the English way more than we ever cared for the Germans though it isnt wrong to stay with your buddies or the people you like. To think of how longer the war would have lasted if we did not support either side. The Germans clung to the Austrians like we did to the Allies.

Executions are extraordinarily barbaric. Execution is murder; it is the premeditated killing of an unarmed man who is unable to resist death, and so, execution is as much a crime as the crime committed by the criminal himself.

Saddam Hussein killed/tortured a ton of people and you want the U.S. government to shelter him in prison? Not likely. Make him work a dangerous job from which he can't escape? That's what I would do, but the government wouldn't. So death is the only option. But hanging.. was.. stupid. I understand that it needs to be a dramatic, historical and hopefully a tad (at least) painful way to die, but hanging is a tad too historic and not related to the U.S.

Yes, I want the United States of America to shelter Saddam Hussein in prison because people haven't the right to judge whether other people should die or live.

Yes they do. The lion decides whether and which gazelle dies. The human in advantage decides the fate and judges whether the human in disadvantage dies or not. Most creatures try to protect those of the same species. Humans protect humanity from Saddam Hussein by killin' 'im.

I am for the Death Penalty; only if it's something painless like the Lethal Injection. I am against the Death Penalty if it involves Hanging, the Electric chair, or anything which involves excruciating pain.

Therefore, I believe it is wrong how they're going to execute Saddam's death penalty because it involves hanging. Now I would support his death penalty if it was the lethal injection, but unfortunately tihs is not the case. But nonetheless, this decision was made by the iraqis and not us.

You have to remember though were not running the show the Iraqi court ran alot of this and thats what the Iraqis sentenced him. I would have to say Iraqi's are more barbaric than most cultures, but look what they have to live with. When it comes to a matter like this we shouldnt be telling them what to do. He did not directly harm the Americans himself only Iraqi's. After all you cant charge a person for the lives his soldiers committed in battle. Saddam wanted firing squad but he got hanging prolly cause the Iraqis didnt want to give him what he wanted.

Personally if the Iraqis wanted him stoned to death I would care only slightly more for him than hanging.

No offense, but I feel that your analogy regarding the lion and gazelle does not really apply to the situation. While I feel that humans at times can tend to be animals, I wouldn't compare an animal that has to kill a gazelle in order to eat it to the Iraqi people condemning Hussein to death. That is, of course, assuming that we are not planning to eat Saddam Hussein and that he isn't a gazelle in disguise.

Also, you will find that most species tend to only protect those of their own family (although some animals have no family bonds) and can be more brutal to the fellow people of the species than to the prey they consume, as the prey must live on in order for continued survival while the fellow animals of the same species are merely competition. Humans, as well as other animals, tend to favor the murder of other members of their species over the murder of animals they consider prey.

The reason for executing Saddam Hussein is quite simple to analyze really. Technically, by legal terms, you cannot see his acts as guilty. The law by which he would be tried would be those of when he commited the crime, unless specified by law which announces that he will be tried by current law at time of court.

Saddam Hussein was the law in regimist Iraq. So legally speaking, he could do whatever he wanted. One can say the following: "Oh, then he'd just kill everyone he disliked." There is a major flaw with this statement and it is assuming that Saddam didn't know his country. Saddam Hussein is a very intelligent person, one may not see him like this, but his intellectual type is very similar to Hitler's, a political and ecnomical genious. Both Saddam Hussein and Adolf Hitler are the extreme types of their intellectual type. Saddam would most definetly know the consecuences, mainly political, social and economical, of mass killings.

But we know we can't change what has happened in Iraqi courts the last few weeks, so let's not discuss that. The matter is that, while we are given the public image that Saddam is the cruelest figure to ever roam the Middle East during modern times is what generally makes society base its conclusions upon. With a man so "cruel" as this, wouldn't you give him a cruel punishment? Wouldn't you let him rot in jail, make him participate in forced manual labor or maybe give him a life, like ex Chilean dictator General Augusto Pinochet?

The answer is simple. Saddam Hussein was nobody before he joined the Bach party. He had very little connections and very little resources. He rose in power until he became the supreme leader of Iraq. You wouldn't really want this guy hanging around, waiting for a military coupe or to be immortalized by death, to have a massive amount of followers after his death. You want to humiliate him in the worst possible way, by a public hanging. If you shoot him, he dies in an honorable way, in the name of Iraq. By hanging you see him struggle, begging for mercy, the people see his weaknesses, and they later forget him.

I forgot to add the first sentence to my previous statement that significantly changes the whole thing.

It was the trials judges family that was kidnapped. This was the second judge in the trial, I don't know exactly what happened to the first judge.
The whole trial just sounds rather suspicious.

Yes, exicution IS murder. But there is no better way for us to deal with them. It costs to much to keep them in jail. And we can't just put them to work, cus they will ALWAYS find a way to escape. And it would be the stupidest idea to put them to work in mineing. To many places tp hide, to many hazardus things around for them to kill the gaurds with. " But there will be more than one guard" Thats great. So were just going to let them kill our gaurds, and not do anything about it. Awsome. That will go over well. " We can punish them" How, beating him? lets think about that for a second. I kill a guard, and I get beat.... good traid!!

Now, im not saying that we should torcher EVERYONE..... Just the ones that deserve it. Like someone who killed more than 4 people. At that point, they are no longer people, they are monsters. thats all there is to it.

And like I said, I'm a VERY sick and twisted person.

Currently, in the United States, it costs more to execute a person than to keep him in jail for life. The fact is, there are alternatives, and these alternatives would be far more positive for society and humanity than another corpse. Putting them to work is a viable option, as the concept of work in jails is currently in place and is working fabulously. If you have them making chairs in some well guarded factory, the chance for them to escape is essentially the same as sticking them in a jail cell.



But when do we turn into those that we are attempting to punish? If I condemn every single person who has killed at least five people, which seems to be an arbitrary number at best, to a lifetime of torture, am I not worse than the person who killed five people because he snapped at his job? I would hope that I hold a higher moral standard, one in which I realize that punishing criminals doesn't solve anything except to satisfy humanity's need for revenge.

I think that to torture Saddam would shout to the world, "Hey look! We're no better than him! Not only do we kill those who we deem negative for society, we also torture them as well." I personally would be disgusted if someone decided that torture was justifiable as retribution. It would merely start a chain of retributions that would do nothing for society.