Saddam execution order upheld....thoughts?

[horns666]

Civil rights should be reserved for civil people..

Human pollution DOES exist..you can't debate that issue with me..because I took out the trash..and plenty of it!!!!!

If any dickweed thinks such trash is my equal..man, we got a problem!

[wulfe13]

I B T L :d

[Tashtego]

Actually we became Iraq's protector and provider in 1980 after losing Iran to the Khomeini Islamic Revolution. We continued to be Iraq's ally until the day Saddam invaded Kuwait in August 1990.

We outbid the Soviets for his clienthood. We are also the ones who sold him some of the chemical weapons he had, which is why we knew he had them. What he did with them we don't know.

When you say "we" do you mean the United States , various Nato countries or ...? I'm not sure from the stats I've read the United States was prominant among the trade partners Iraq had. I never saw any claims of US chemical weapons sales either. Just some 'dual use' stuff and one case of an illegal sale of something that could be used in making mustard gas which was prosecuted. Most of the chemicals seem to have come from other countries.
I have read somewhere that Saddam carried out the Kuwait invasion under the mistaken impression that the US would do nothing. The story ran that he was mislead by an unclear diplomatic exchange.
It's a really interesting history that I've not read enough about. It is probably too recent to be able to get a reliable picture though. Many of the sources cited in that Wikipedia article were really poor for instance. It is ironic that this period of machiavellian manuvering is now hailed by opponents of the current idealism as a period of rational policy making that ought to be repeated.

[Argos]

Kinda reminds of a pacifist.
Put one in a true life threatening situation and see how firm their convictions really are.
I guarantee most will fight back.

My test for anyone claiming to be a pacifist is to punch them squarly in the face. If they try and fight back, they're lying hypocrites.

It doesn't have anything to do with pacifism, and I am certainly not a pacifist. I own guns, I teach martial arts, and am a member of the military. I'm not coming from a religious angle, either.

It has to do with whether or not it is "right" to violate the sanctity of life when the person in question isn't posing any immediate threat to the lives of others. Regardless of what he did in the past, Saddam isn't going to be released and kill more people whether he's executed or not, so killing him in order to save more lives isn't a valid reason. One would think that capital punishment given solely for revenge would be outmoded by now.

You're essentially sending the message that if the circumstances are right, it's acceptable to take a life.

If anything, Hussein's execution may lead to an increase in violence. I'd much rather see him put to better use than executed in the interest of brutalizing symbolism.

[rjohnstone]

Kinda reminds of a pacifist.
Put one in a true life threatening situation and see how firm their convictions really are.
I guarantee most will fight back.

My test for anyone claiming to be a pacifist is to punch them squarly in the face. If they try and fight back, they're lying hypocrites.

[toejam]

Then again, folks with your POV should gradually disappear so I guess it'll be okay...

LMAO! :ROTF:

[xenophobe]

So if a psychopath is attacking your wife and the only way you can stop him is to kill him, you're saying that you'd let him kill her because the taking of human life IN ANY CONTEXT is wrong? That just goes against Darwinian selection. Then again, folks with your POV should gradually disappear so I guess it'll be okay...

A woman raped is morally superior to a woman with a gun next to a dead rapist.

[Argos]

So if a psychopath is attacking your wife and the only way you can stop him is to kill him, you're saying that you'd let him kill her because the taking of human life IN ANY CONTEXT is wrong? That just goes against Darwinian selection. Then again, folks with your POV should gradually disappear so I guess it'll be okay...

Of course not. Self defense and the defense of one's family is one matter. Execution is another.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating releasing Saddam without punishment. But I'm not a proponent of deliberate killing.

[xenophobe]

If one considers the taking of human life--in any context--to be wrong and inhumane, execution is considered murder. You might not agree with it, but it's a simple concept.

The simple concept is that words have specific meanings. Stretching the use of one word to cover an act that it does not describe is being dishonest. I'm sorry, no matter what you think of an execution, it is far different from murder.

[lerxstcat]

If one considers the taking of human life--in any context--to be wrong and inhumane, execution is considered murder. You might not agree with it, but it's a simple concept.

So if a psychopath is attacking your wife and the only way you can stop him is to kill him, you're saying that you'd let him kill her because the taking of human life IN ANY CONTEXT is wrong? That just goes against Darwinian selection. Then again, folks with your POV should gradually disappear so I guess it'll be okay...

[xenophobe]

i am not confused. i understand the definitions. you are just splitting hairs in my opinion. killing/murder/manslaughter/whatever - either way you end up dead at which point the semantics don't mean shit. these are terms for lawyers, to me it's all just killing.

Semantics? Hardly. Spin it however you want. Call it genocide or serial killing if you want as well. Your use of english is paramount. If you do not wish to use the correct meaning for words, then you're distorting the truth.

hanging saddam is state sanctioned killing. murdering is not state sanctioned killing. so the difference is who approves of the killing.

Murder is a deliberate and intentional act of depriving someone of their life. Killing someone who has deprived many people of their lives, a murderer, condemned to death will die. The state is not murdering him. Yes, they are killing him because of the crimes he committed.

If you want to get into semantics...
State Sanctioned Murdering would include Ruby Ridge, Waco, Tiananmen Square, the Holocaust, and any other event where government forces killed civilians in cold blood without just cause... And putting a person on trial and sentencing them to death isn't semantics, it's a liberal phrase that is misconstrued to further a political agenda.

[Argos]

If you are not going to use words by their correct meaning, how can I accept your opinions in any serious context? Pure gibberish.

Even if you believe it is not justice, it is not murder.

If one considers the taking of human life--in any context--to be wrong and inhumane, execution is considered murder. You might not agree with it, but it's a simple concept.

[xenophobe]

That's a subjective argument. Some of us don't consider capital punishment to be a form of "justice". Perhaps you should take that into consideration before questioning my choice of words.

If you are not going to use words by their correct meaning, how can I accept your opinions in any serious context? Pure gibberish.

Even if you believe it is not justice, it is not murder.

[ABSOLUT CHARVEL]

the one thing is that after the hanging, there will not be a way for a hostage situation by his old party, which I'm suprized has not happened.

[lerxstcat]

How did the United States 'prop him up' and arm Hussien's Iraq? All I've ever seen are Soviet sphere weaponry used by the Iraqi military. Are you thinking of how the French helped to build that Reactor that the Israeli's destroyed?

Actually we became Iraq's protector and provider in 1980 after losing Iran to the Khomeini Islamic Revolution. We continued to be Iraq's ally until the day Saddam invaded Kuwait in August 1990.

We outbid the Soviets for his clienthood. We are also the ones who sold him some of the chemical weapons he had, which is why we knew he had them. What he did with them we don't know.