Debate and Discussion

Saddam's Death = WWIII?
Knuckles at 12:47PM, Nov. 6, 2006
(offline)
posts: 436
joined: 2-15-2006
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/11/05/hussein.world.reax/index.html

With the recent verdict of Saddam being put to death, what does this mean for the rest of the world? I am glad they're going to finally kill the bastard after 20++ years of his genocide and Hitler-like rule. I still think they waited way too long to decide… There's nothing they could possibly debate about. He killed hundreds of people without a bat of an eye and was just as insane as Hitler. So does this mean Baghdad and the surrounding areas is going to get even more intense than it already is once he is finally dead? As if things could not get any worse now.

Myth Xaran (manga) - http://www.drunkduck.com/Myth_Xaran
Exodus Studios (Games & More) - http://www.exodus-studio.com
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:19PM
Ronson at 12:55PM, Nov. 6, 2006
(online)
posts: 837
joined: 1-1-2006
I think Saddam will now be a martyr. Not just because he's going to be put to death, but also because the trial was a mess that no one could view as fair by any stretch of the imagination. Which is a pity, because a fair trial would certainly have come up with a guilty verdict.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:10PM
Rich at 1:08PM, Nov. 6, 2006
(online)
posts: 1,434
joined: 2-11-2006
I doubt it will be WWIII. Odds are that the democrats will regain control of congress, and eventually the presidency. After that, they'll be likely to try and make amends for whatever idiocy G. Dubya caused.

I'm sorta divided on giving Hussein the death penalty. Death is a quick way out, one that allows for a person to not learn from their mistakes. Life in prison forces the person to exist with their freedom cut off, forcing them to think about what they have done wrong.

And as much as Saddam has done in his life, he doesn't deserve a quick way out. He deserves to spend the rest of his life staring out a small window viewing the freedom he will never again have, constantly contemplating all he's done wrong.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:06PM
Ronson at 1:21PM, Nov. 6, 2006
(online)
posts: 837
joined: 1-1-2006
I also firmly hold that government shouldn't be allowed to kill anyone. Opening that door can lead to too much control and oppression of the citizens.

But most people seem to like giving their government more rights that the citizens, and the majority is allowed to decide stupid things like that all the time.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:10PM
Tantz Aerine at 1:43PM, Nov. 6, 2006
(online)
posts: 1,616
joined: 10-11-2006
Rich
I doubt it will be WWIII. Odds are that the democrats will regain control of congress, and eventually the presidency. After that, they'll be likely to try and make amends for whatever idiocy G. Dubya caused.

I'm sorta divided on giving Hussein the death penalty. Death is a quick way out, one that allows for a person to not learn from their mistakes. Life in prison forces the person to exist with their freedom cut off, forcing them to think about what they have done wrong.

And as much as Saddam has done in his life, he doesn't deserve a quick way out. He deserves to spend the rest of his life staring out a small window viewing the freedom he will never again have, constantly contemplating all he's done wrong.

I agree. Execution may give all the wrong messages and put what any criminal, of any range and size, did completely out of context- and that is a dangerous thing to allow to happen.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:06PM
ccs1989 at 4:28PM, Nov. 6, 2006
(online)
posts: 2,656
joined: 1-2-2006
Give the guy life imprisonment. Death is too lenient.
http://ccs1989.deviantart.com

“If one advances confidently in the direction of his dreams, and endeavors to live the life which he has imagined, he will meet with a success unexpected in common hours.”
-Henry David Thoreau, Walden
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:38AM
MagickLorelai at 7:07PM, Nov. 6, 2006
(online)
posts: 320
joined: 1-20-2006
Someone commented elsewhere that when a community within a species experiences an individual that exhibits undesirable qualities, the community often takes out the undesirable one. That's what people want to do here; Saddam's life should be forfeit.

…But I don't think killing him after an unfair trial will make his enemies seem any better. He WILL be made into a martyr, and used an example of how evil our empire is(I'm being sarcastic about that). There are many things about this war that have gone poorly, that have resulted in too great a loss. I don't think killing Saddam will end this war any sooner…it's just something to make people feel better. (As well as a punishment for his crimes).

last edited on July 14, 2011 1:50PM
Phantom Penguin at 7:24PM, Nov. 6, 2006
(offline)
posts: 1,075
joined: 1-6-2006
honestly i have no idea. generally speaking the people didn't support him. But as his verdict was read he started screaming ‘god is great’. Hussien was never a religous man so im sure hes using it to spark something to remember him by. I think he trying to act like a marytr before he goes.

Its a quick way our for one of the worst rulers the middle east has ever seen. i don't care i think he deserves death, but not a quick one.

The trail was a damned zoo, but unfair trail or not, he was guilty, so i don't see how it would matter. But the fighters will use it as another one of those “look the us is killing a imprisoned person even if we kill hundreds of people with car bombs every day, they are the evil ones!”


you know what the bad part is? its going to work.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:42PM
ozoneocean at 9:04PM, Nov. 6, 2006
(online)
posts: 24,940
joined: 1-2-2006
Phantom Penguin
he trail was a damned zoo, but unfair trail or not, he was guilty, so i don't see how it would matter. But the fighters will use it as another one of those “look the us is killing a imprisoned person even if we kill hundreds of people with car bombs every day, they are the evil ones!”
While all the people killed in action by the occupying forces either don't exist or are all magically turned into militants, even if they didn't know it themselves… ;)

Sorry for that, just being a devil's advocate, this is a complex situation and that trial was a joke. I don't think Sadam was that bad when you compare him to your average dictator. There's been a lot of propaganda here, a lot of buck passing… All the bad things in dysfunctional Iraq were attributed to him so he's a good scape-goat.
That said, I think he was a very bad man, and it's better for everyone if he just disappears, but I can't agree with the death penalty, especially since it was handed down while the country was under an active occupation. That sends a very dark signal.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:24PM
Rich at 9:48PM, Nov. 6, 2006
(online)
posts: 1,434
joined: 2-11-2006
ozoneocean
I can't agree with the death penalty, especially since it was handed down while the country was under an active occupation. That sends a very dark signal.

You think it looks dark to you? I'm a prime candidate for the US draft if they have one. This is gonna make things far worse than they have ever been for the troops.

I'm already lining up a way to dodge the draft IF and WHEN they decide to pull it. If I am unable to escape to a foreign country (Canada, Mexico, and Australia are the top picks), I'll self-amputate one of my feet. Losing your foot may make life hard, but it won't be as bad as being forced to fight in a war you are against.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:06PM
Black_Kitty at 8:54PM, Nov. 7, 2006
(online)
posts: 1,475
joined: 1-1-2006
I'm having a hard time imagining a fair trial is possible for Saddam. I mean, this is Saddam. He comes with a lot of controversial baggage.

Take a look at the situation right now. You have the Shiites and Kurds agreeing with the sentence but there are pro-Saddam rallies in the Sunni Muslim areas. I don't think there's any situation or sentence that would be satisfactory to everyone in Iraq.

last edited on July 14, 2011 11:23AM
ozoneocean at 9:21PM, Nov. 7, 2006
(online)
posts: 24,940
joined: 1-2-2006
Black_Kitty
I'm having a hard time imagining a fair trial is possible for Saddam. I mean, this is Saddam. He comes with a lot of controversial baggage.
Anybody can have a fair trial. But this one wasn't even a good attempt at one.
For a start there is NO way it should have been done while under aggressive occupation, even under a pacific occupation it would have been dodgey.
Secondly, since they went ahead with it anyway, it should have been done in a neutral country, with a real, international, fair court… Just like the way it's ALWAYS done. There's a nice solid system that's been around for decades, it's tried and tested. As it was, they had an obvious show-trial. That makes the occupation forces and the invasion itself look even more malign than they already did.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:24PM
Black_Kitty at 10:51PM, Nov. 7, 2006
(online)
posts: 1,475
joined: 1-1-2006
While I'm aware that the US is trying to set some sort of deadline to get out of Iraq, the reality is that the occupation of Iraq will continue for many years. To leave now is in a way irresponsible. Iraq isn't a stable country right now. To stay however means years of commitment and resources.

Saddam stands a better chance of dying of old age then having a fair trial (or any trial for that matter) if you want to wait until the occupation of Iraq is over. This will give no closure to those that suffered the most while Saddam was in power.

While I do find it interesting they didn't send Saddam to international court, I can kind of understand them having the trial in Iraq. Would the people of Iraq stand to have justice (whatever that may be) carried out in an international court? Or would they want to do it in their own country instead?

I also can't help but wonder how long an international trial would take. Milosevic was on trial for four years before he died and they still weren't finished with it.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:23AM
ozoneocean at 11:37PM, Nov. 7, 2006
(online)
posts: 24,940
joined: 1-2-2006
-The fact that Milosevic died was a serious breach of care on the part of the International Court of Justice (or whatever it's actually called ;) )
But yes, that's how it should have been done. As it is, there was nothing of justice, just a trial to appease some factions. Wondering if the Iraqi people would stand for an international trial is sort of redundant, since they don't really have much of an official say in anything. :)
Aside from that, I can't see how any hypothetical adverse reaction could possibly have manifested itself in a worse way to the strife they've already got. Honestly, the situation on the ground would probably have been calmer if anything; due to the removal of a spectacle that did nothing but aggravate and spur on tensions.

And yes, waiting until the occupation was over, (or at least stable), would have been more positive, no matter how long it took. Instead it's been a makeshift, shoddy joke like the rest of the “planned” effort over there.

-The end result is that countries that invade other sovereign nations, loot them, foment strife and warfare within them, destroy their infrastructure (with a token effort to rebuild them that Iraqi is actually paying for!), and end with trying and sentencing to death their former leaders, simply can no longer lay claim to being "the good guys'.

We in the West have done exactly what we always accused the Soviets of doing. I hope other countries look on us and fear us now, because if they're not careful, they could end up exactly the same way.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:24PM
Black_Kitty at 5:00AM, Nov. 8, 2006
(online)
posts: 1,475
joined: 1-1-2006
ozoneocean
Aside from that, I can't see how any hypothetical adverse reaction could possibly have manifested itself in a worse way to the strife they've already got. Honestly, the situation on the ground would probably have been calmer if anything; due to the removal of a spectacle that did nothing but aggravate and spur on tensions.

I doubt it. It's not as if the Iraqi people don't have television or won't have the news delivered to them one way or another. This isn't out of sight, out of mind.

The only possible situation I can see that would have led to a calmer situation is if Saddam was never tried and never given a sentence. If you don't make a decision, then nobody is going to complain about that decision.

Although I could also imagine all fractions being equally pissed off that not only is their country now being overrun by Western occupation but they can't even exercise any jurisdiction over their former dictator. Maybe they'll be united at being equally pissed off at everyone else. ;)

And yes, waiting until the occupation was over, (or at least stable), would have been more positive, no matter how long it took. Instead it's been a makeshift, shoddy joke like the rest of the “planned” effort over there.

A stable occupation probably won't happen for years either. Another issue to this problem is: how long can you hold on to Saddam before people start to ask what the hell are you doing with that guy?

I know it sounds kind of funny given the situation but you can't jail a guy and tell him “sorry, we can't put you on trial until the rest of the country is ready for you.”

-The end result is that countries that invade other sovereign nations, loot them, foment strife and warfare within them, destroy their infrastructure (with a token effort to rebuild them that Iraqi is actually paying for!), and end with trying and sentencing to death their former leaders, simply can no longer lay claim to being "the good guys'.

Loot them? What were they looting? Seriously, this is the first time I've heard of actual looting.

At the same time, one can't help but imagine what the Kurds and Shiites would think about that. I would imagine that they wouldn't want Saddam back in power.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:23AM
Ronson at 6:36AM, Nov. 8, 2006
(online)
posts: 837
joined: 1-1-2006
There are two reasons that the international court of law wasn't used:

1. They don't have the death penalty. Bush wants Saddam dead.
2. Bush and the administration are anti-world court.

Thus, the reason is rooted in US policy, not Iraqi.

As for how this war will end, it will be like Viet Nam. Declare victory and get the heck out – regardless of the mess we leave behind. The only debate left is whether we'll do it sooner rather than later.

Of course, there is the “embassy” we're building in Iraq that is larger than the Vatican. Permanent bases? You bet.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:10PM
ccs1989 at 12:30PM, Nov. 8, 2006
(online)
posts: 2,656
joined: 1-2-2006
If Bush can keep the war going for 2 more years, however, he can pass on the mess to whoever gets elected afterward. If it's a Democrat, he can make the Democrats look bad. If it's another Republican, it will probably make the Republicans look bad. I'm not sure exactly what party the Bush Administration is anymore.
http://ccs1989.deviantart.com

“If one advances confidently in the direction of his dreams, and endeavors to live the life which he has imagined, he will meet with a success unexpected in common hours.”
-Henry David Thoreau, Walden
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:38AM
Rich at 7:20PM, Nov. 8, 2006
(online)
posts: 1,434
joined: 2-11-2006
ccs1989
I'm not sure exactly what party the Bush Administration is anymore.

The Wikipedia article on Bush's political afiliation.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:06PM
ozoneocean at 7:30PM, Nov. 8, 2006
(online)
posts: 24,940
joined: 1-2-2006
BK-As to the average Iraqi's access to TV and radio, I don't think that would make much difference either, quite aside from the fact that they don't really have enough electricity to make TV viable anyway, even if they do have them. Other than that, their press can hardly be considered free.
But it's largely irrelevent.
-They don't exersise juristiction of ‘their former dictator’… It's made to look as if they do, that's obvious, just like the sham when US soldiers pulled down Sadam's staue infront off the hotel where international press were staying, with the streets closed of with tanks and with a small crowd of “iraqi” supporters flown in from outside Iraq.

And yes, you can wait until the situation is stable and you can jail people that long. It's been done so many times before it's not funny. ;)

Yes, actuall looting took place; Soldiers stole artifacts and took “trophies” etc. But I was speaking figuratively, not about those nasty but relatively isolated instances. For example, Iraqi oil is being used to ‘pay’ for much of the ‘reconstruction’…

I don't think many people in Iraq would ever want Sadam back in power, be they Shiite, Jew, Kurd, Christian, Sunni, or even many former Bath (?) party members! Again, that just isn't the issue.
——————-
I agree with Ronson there.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:24PM
Comicmasta at 3:59AM, Nov. 9, 2006
(offline)
posts: 1,338
joined: 6-4-2006
Its iraq law that they can wait up to 2 month for a hanging so…..Can we hang Saddam on christmas!?!?!
(Steven Colbert wanted this to happen)
i have been brought back….The Boanitia..grrrrr…..Must find Super Jesus!!!!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:43AM
Knuckles at 6:39AM, Nov. 9, 2006
(offline)
posts: 436
joined: 2-15-2006
ccs1989
If Bush can keep the war going for 2 more years, however, he can pass on the mess to whoever gets elected afterward. If it's a Democrat, he can make the Democrats look bad. If it's another Republican, it will probably make the Republicans look bad. I'm not sure exactly what party the Bush Administration is anymore.

He can pass the mess on to someone else, but everyone will remember that he was the one who started it in the first place. So whoever is the new person that comes along, all he needs to do is clean up that mess and that will win the people over.

Myth Xaran (manga) - http://www.drunkduck.com/Myth_Xaran
Exodus Studios (Games & More) - http://www.exodus-studio.com
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:19PM
Ronson at 7:14AM, Nov. 9, 2006
(online)
posts: 837
joined: 1-1-2006
Knuckles
He can pass the mess on to someone else, but everyone will remember that he was the one who started it in the first place.

I don't know about that Knuckles. Who blames Kennedy for Viet Nam?
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:10PM
ozoneocean at 8:41AM, Nov. 9, 2006
(online)
posts: 24,940
joined: 1-2-2006
Ronson
I don't know about that Knuckles. Who blames Kennedy for Viet Nam?
Good point. In Australia we blame LBJ… It was Linden Johnson that really got the Australian troops over there and dying rather than Kennedy.
Ah I wouldn't know, it was before my time. ;)
What's his middle name? Banes…?
I still think Bush will retain much of the blame though because the invasion was the result of such a strong ideological push by such a small group. It didn't go “bad” until the invasion was over and the occupation began, but then it's been a troubled occupation under their management long enough to stick to the original perpetrators somewhat. Kennedy had the “advantage” in that he died early enough not to get stained…
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:24PM
Phantom Penguin at 1:29PM, Nov. 11, 2006
(offline)
posts: 1,075
joined: 1-6-2006
Ronson
There are two reasons that the international court of law wasn't used:

1. They don't have the death penalty. Bush wants Saddam dead.
2. Bush and the administration are anti-world court.

Thus, the reason is rooted in US policy, not Iraqi.

As for how this war will end, it will be like Viet Nam. Declare victory and get the heck out – regardless of the mess we leave behind. The only debate left is whether we'll do it sooner rather than later.

Of course, there is the “embassy” we're building in Iraq that is larger than the Vatican. Permanent bases? You bet.

I bet Camp Anaconda is going to become the US Military base in Iraq, hell its got movie theaters and swimming pools. The base i was in didn't even have a chow hall.

And about the world court, of course Bush wanted to see him dead, also even he went threw the world court the trail wouldn't be finished in any of their lifespans.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:42PM
Sex on the Beach at 6:34PM, Nov. 11, 2006
(offline)
posts: 5
joined: 7-24-2006
If we were to look at Saddam in an unbiased view, I think we'd want to kill him. If he were to be left in power, he would probably do exactly what he did before. we need the quickest, most effective way to rid society of him, and that's death. Being emotional people, some would say they'd want to torure him and they'd want him to die slowly, but that is just letting emotions getting in the way.
the cocktail.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:31PM
ozoneocean at 2:13AM, Nov. 12, 2006
(online)
posts: 24,940
joined: 1-2-2006
Sex on the Beach
If we were to look at Saddam in an unbiased view…
But the thing is, even THAT view is biased. It relys on the assumption that we have a right to decide on what to do with the the leaders of foriegn nations.
He was deposed in what was obviously an unjust invasion and he was never a good man, but it still cannot be left up to invaders to meet out this sort of “justice”, even if it is through the artifice of an (apparently) Iraqi court showtrial.

That sets us back hundreds of years.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:24PM
Knuckles at 6:17AM, Nov. 13, 2006
(offline)
posts: 436
joined: 2-15-2006
Ronson
Knuckles
He can pass the mess on to someone else, but everyone will remember that he was the one who started it in the first place.

I don't know about that Knuckles. Who blames Kennedy for Viet Nam?

Kennedy wasn't inducted into office TWICE IN A ROW. Bush had two chances to fix the mess, and he screwed up twice.

Myth Xaran (manga) - http://www.drunkduck.com/Myth_Xaran
Exodus Studios (Games & More) - http://www.exodus-studio.com
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:19PM
Ronson at 1:00PM, Nov. 13, 2006
(online)
posts: 837
joined: 1-1-2006
Knuckles
Ronson
Knuckles
He can pass the mess on to someone else, but everyone will remember that he was the one who started it in the first place.

I don't know about that Knuckles. Who blames Kennedy for Viet Nam?

Kennedy wasn't inducted into office TWICE IN A ROW. Bush had two chances to fix the mess, and he screwed up twice.

Oh, I'm not defending Bush, Knuckles. By any rights he should go down as the worst president in history … so far, at least.

My only point is that the Iraq War will not be fully understood until about 20 years after it's over and history might not see it as we do now.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:10PM
Rich at 9:07PM, Nov. 13, 2006
(online)
posts: 1,434
joined: 2-11-2006
Ronson
My only point is that the Iraq War will not be fully understood until about 20 years after it's over and history might not see it as we do now.

This could honestly be said about every war ever fought.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:06PM
The mediocre one at 10:46AM, Nov. 14, 2006
(offline)
posts: 846
joined: 1-15-2006


What I think is yes now he's martyred, and damnit I think we were undually cruel to him (I mean, hanging!?) Even with one such as him, we, by our own law cannot do that, it's cruel and unnecissary punishment. Which we banned somewhere between civil war and easy bake ovens, I don't quite remember. However, completely contradictiing the point I just made I think we need to have a place where we send all the really, really big guys from jails and all the really sadistic people, because saddam may have been ready to die, but I doubt he was ready to take a two by four up his bum. (You can tell I got this idea from Ron White if you've ever listened to him.)

And also this will only go to make the terrorists get more irate, more bombings, more skirmishes…everything. I mean just today, over a hundred people were abducted. Though that was bagdahd (pardon my spelling) I personally picture that the two may be working in sequence, either allies or maybe by the same people. So I expect something of the sort to happen in Iraq as well, and soon.

See I stayed on topic, at least a bit!.
Paper Mache Cataclysm
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:15PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved