Saddams sentence

Its not actually 140 people that have died under sadam its 180000 starting from 70's to late 80's . He deserves to be tortured like he had done to the people of his country
 
Reading through the heckled and jeering responses of so many of you make me really wonder who is worse... Saddam was bad, but like Nate said, if you punish a murderer with murder, you're just as bad.

I know what he has done is inexcusible, but let's not forget he's not the only player involved in this. Afterall, who gave him the facilities to execute his genocidal attacks? The USA of course. Let's not forget he is being charged for the deaths of 130 people (apparently the court did not take into account the figures from the 70's and 80's as cited by DragonWii). This is approximately the figure of Iraqi civilians being murdered every day by the US-led coalition in Iraq, but will you see any of their leaders go on trial for crimes against humanity? I highly doubt it.

The kind of people who are quick to bag Saddam are usually the same kind who hate Hitler for no apparent reason other than the fact everybody else seems to hate him. The point I am trying to make is that no-one has the right to critisize Hitler or Saddam any more than George Bush or Ehud Olmert, as nothing they are doing are anything short of what the Nazis did leading up to World War II. Infact the difference between the Saddam/Hitler scenario and the Bush scenario is that Saddam and Hitler knew how to manage their economies, and they countries were economically very prosperous during their reign (Hitler was the only leader in the world who achieved a 100% employment stat), as opposed to George Bush leading the US economy's record surplus to a record deficit, tsk tsk tsk...

But back on topic... I don't think killing Saddam will achieve anything, other than further destabilise the already fragile situation between the Iraqi Sunni and Shi'ite population, paving the way for much more bloodshed. Supporters of Saddam will initiate immediate and massive retaliation, so... do the math. Is it really worth killing him? It's not like he can do anything anymore anyway. If he's not in a position of power, then what threat is he?

It has already been proven he has no ties to any terrorist group, and that his regime posed no threat at all to the US or any other countries. So the invasion and occupation was all for... zilch.

100,000 dead Iraqi civillians later, a good portion of the country in uninhabitable ruins, 70%+ unemployment, rapidly growing groups of insurgents, and crying mothers mourning the murders of their children all take their hats off to George Bush's invasion, freeing them from the "cruel hands of the tyrant". Please don't tell me you guys really think it was worth all the bloodshed?

I know I'm setting myself up for a flaming up the whazoo but do actually read everything of what I've written up instead of seeing a couple of words and assuming I support his actions before writing back.
 
Last edited:
Ezekiel86 said:
Reading through the heckled and jeering responses of so many of you make me really wonder who is worse... Saddam was bad, but like Nate said, if you punish a murderer with murder, you're just as bad.

I know what he has done is inexcusible, but let's not forget he's not the only player involved in this. Afterall, who gave him the facilities to execute his genocidal attacks? The USA of course. Let's not forget he is being charged for the deaths of 130 people (apparently the court did not take into account the figures from the 70's and 80's as cited by DragonWii). This is approximately the figure of Iraqi civilians being murdered every day by the US-led coalition in Iraq, but will you see any of their leaders go on trial for crimes against humanity? I highly doubt it.

The kind of people who are quick to bag Saddam are usually the same kind who hate Hitler for no apparent reason other than the fact everybody else seems to hate him. The point I am trying to make is that no-one has the right to critisize Hitler or Saddam any more than George Bush or Ehud Olmert, as nothing they are doing are anything short of what the Nazis did leading up to World War II. Infact the between the Saddam/Hitler scenario and the Bush scenario is that Saddam and Hitler knew how to manage their economies, and they countries were economically very prosperous during their reign (Hitler was the only leader in the world who achieved a 100% employment stat), as opposed to George Bush leading the US economy's record surplus to a record deficit, tsk tsk tsk...

But back on topic... I don't think killing Saddam will achieve anything, other than further destabilise the already fragile situation between the Iraqi Sunni and Shi'ite population, paving the way for much more bloodshed. Supporters of Saddam will initiate immediate and massive retaliation, so... do the math. Is it really worth killing him? It's not like he can do anything anymore anyway. If he's not in a position of power, then what threat is he?

It has already been proven he has no ties to any terrorist group, and that his regime posed no threat at all to the US or any other countries. So the invasion and occupation was all for... zilch.

100,000 dead Iraqi civillians later, a good portion of the country in uninhabitable ruins, 70%+ unemployment, rapidly growing groups of insurgents, and crying mothers mourning the murders of their children all take their hats off to George Bush's invasion, freeing them from the "cruel hands of the tyrant". Please don't tell me you guys really think it was worth all the bloodshed?

I know I'm setting myself up for a flaming up the whazoo but do actually read everything of what I've written up instead of seeing a couple of words and assuming I support his actions before writing back.

I agree with you, although the coalition technically isnt murdering people as in war it doesnt count as a crime
 
Oh god here comes that debater again

Mind you Tony "smiley" Blair said the death sentacne is to harsh
 
I don't want him to die, n fact I don't like the death sentence, just because every life can't be killed just by someone else...

I don't know why, but I think that he will scape or suicide, but he will never let himself be killed by Americans... anyway if it were televised, I'll see it... but I don't like the way he is going to be killed, I mean it's better with a letal injection than with a rope in your neck.

USA is sometimes too "cruel"
 
Fact hanging doesn't choke you to death
it acutely snaps the spine (because of the drop the whole of your wait on your neck)
 
Well, i actually don't understandd how a country like USA, can put someone to death, that doesn't have anything to be with them... do you know what I mean?
 
Us makeing every one they hate dead
we should have the death sentance "over ere" the prisions are apparently geting to crowded

ever that or send them to the middle of the north pole wareing only a pair of boxers

Edit :
He didnt kill them persoaly (evil dictacters dont get there hands dirty) but he orderd his troops to
 
Arcadium said:
Well, i actually don't understandd how a country like USA, can put someone to death, that doesn't have anything to be with them... do you know what I mean?
yeh, but its not like Iraq can or are gonna put their president to a death sentence. he would have killed them
 
Arcadium said:
Well, i actually don't understandd how a country like USA, can put someone to death, that doesn't have anything to be with them... do you know what I mean?


Well actually, this is Iraq's justice (officially anyway) that is also why they hang and do not inject
 
Back
Top