Death Penalty?

[Comrade K]

I'm against the Death penalty for many reasons. First, there have been some cases here in Canada where someone who may have been executed in the US was imprisoned, and years later released when the authorities finally realized they had the wromg guy. I also find it ... not quite barbaric, but unnecessarily brutal, no matter what the criminal did. Now, I do see the point that it costs money to keep prisoners in jail for life, but I still find they have the right to live. The only time I believe people should be killed is when they pose a threat to others and cannot be effectively stopped any other way. Once the criminal has been caught however, they no longer pose a threat.

[Bocaj Claw]

Maybe theres another way. Look at penal colonies for example. You take all of the criminals and et cetara of a society and ship them someplace. Add a dash of salt, stir, and wait a century or two and you get productive memebers of society like Australians.

Shame it didn't work with Georgia.

[Tom Flapwell]

I'm perturbed to find that videos of his death are shown not just on YouTube but thru Comcast and other news sources. Have they no taste?

[Tum0spoo]

I'm not going to argue it. I believe in use of the death penalty in cases of first degree murder (which to BE convicted it must be "beyond the shadow of a doubt") and in cases of high treason in which the actions caused death.

Like I said, I won't argue. I respect everyones opinion and won't stop you. If the death penalty was abolished, I wouldn't move to return it.

[Bocaj Claw]

So much for "videos will be made for record purposes but will not be broadcast."

[Muninn]

I have seen the entire video and have two things to say...

Saddam was right in the middle of reciting a prayer when they killed him. That's harsh.

Anyone noticed how calm he was? He wasn't shaking (or I didn't see it) or yelling insults and warnings. He was composed and refused a blindfold. He didn't seem angry and he didn't try to bargain.

[The Donmeister]

I've seen conspiracy theorists saying that it wasn't really Saddam, because "crucial parts of the film were blurred". Oh those crazy people!

[Loeln]

I'm perturbed to find that videos of his death are shown not just on YouTube but thru Comcast and other news sources. Have they no taste?

Death sells.

[Caoimhin]

Apparently New Jersey is going to be the first state to formally propose an end to the death sentence (Maryland and Illinois are right behind). Its not going to be passed yet, but in those three states (I'm from jersey and proud of it!) its going to be pending and most likely actually happen. On that note, we should have stepped in, I mean seriously, hanging? Its an inhumane way of execution if you're going to have it at all. Its hypocritical, I mean we did want Saddam out because of his inhumane (and downright cruel) treatment of his people. We're there for a reason (or so we are told) and this goes against why we went there in the first place. They have a right to put him on trial themselves, but they shouldn't be allowed to have picked this form of execution. In fact we should have put him on trial ourselves, because the supposed reason we (I keep saying 'we' but I mean the U.S government) are there are because Hussein was helping the terrorists in some odd random way. But hey "What can you do? What can you do? With a brat like that? Always on your back. What can you do?".

[Rooster]

Interesting note; The crime for which he was actually condemned to death for was the gassing of 150 civilians.

Since the start of the war in 2003, 150,000 iraqi civilians have died.

Not sure what that says, but it is very sad.

[Tavis]

Interesting note; The crime for which he was actually condemned to death for was the gassing of 150 civilians.

Since the start of the war in 2003, 150,000 iraqi civilians have died.

Not sure what that says, but it is very sad.

It says that there were approximately 1000 times as many civilians that died during the period of war as the number of gassed civilians that were mentioned in the trial of Saddam Hussein. It says that people want to put these numbers side-by-side, possibly so that they may compare Saddam Hussein to anyone they want to blame for the war in 2003. To people who blame Bush for the war, it therefore also says that Bush is 1000 times as culpable for the deaths of civilians as Saddam Hussein was.

It says that suicide bombers are not picky. It says that in Iraq, civilians are caught in the crossfire because there is little chance of avoiding it. It also says that there is something fundamentally different between the unintentional loss of life and the carefully premeditated, calculated, and orchestrated murder. It says that people in general really don't know the difference and will believe whatever they want to believe.

You can look at them as straight numbers and conclude something, or you can pay attention to their context and conclude something else entirely.

[Comrade K]

Interesting note; The crime for which he was actually condemned to death for was the gassing of 150 civilians.

Since the start of the war in 2003, 150,000 iraqi civilians have died.

Not sure what that says, but it is very sad.

It says that there were approximately 1000 times as many civilians that died during the period of war as the number of gassed civilians that were mentioned in the trial of Saddam Hussein. It says that people want to put these numbers side-by-side, possibly so that they may compare Saddam Hussein to anyone they want to blame for the war in 2003. To people who blame Bush for the war, it therefore also says that Bush is 1000 times as culpable for the deaths of civilians as Saddam Hussein was.

It says that suicide bombers are not picky. It says that in Iraq, civilians are caught in the crossfire because there is little chance of avoiding it. It also says that there is something fundamentally different between the unintentional loss of life and the carefully premeditated, calculated, and orchestrated murder. It says that people in general really don't know the difference and will believe whatever they want to believe.

You can look at them as straight numbers and conclude something, or you can pay attention to their context and conclude something else entirely.

It's difficult to deal with. I don't think George Bush is as bad as Saddam, because George Bush didn't set out to kill civilians on purpose, it just happens. On the other hand though, if the real goal was to help Iraqis by ridding them of Saddam and bringing peace, stability and all that jazz, like the government said, it sure doesn't help when you're killing large numbers of people. But it doesn't matter, because stability in Iraq isn't the real goal.

[Foxchild]

But it doesn't matter, because stability in Iraq isn't the real goal.

Gotta say, I 100% disagree with you. Firstly, at this point, the UN has declared (since the beginning of the war) that we cannot take the oil there. Ergo, it would not make sense to dump money into something that the 'desired return' now equals zero. They wouldn't be considering more troops.

The military commanders, the generals and admirals, are definitely fighting for stability. Stability would mean returning home, and fewer losses of our own troops.

I truly believe that Bush went in with the ideals of 'spreading democracy' and 'stabilizing' the middle east. He wanted to create a legacy for him and his family, as well as do what his father failed to do. I think the problem is that the higher-ups are working with "ideals" instead of truths and realism, perhaps like a little kid trying to bring a fairy tale to life. I've never questioned that they meant to stabilize Iraq. I do question the methodologies, but shall not get into the specifics of that. I also do not know what to change, in terms of tactics, with an enemy that fights with disregard for even it's own countries people.

[Comrade K]

But it doesn't matter, because stability in Iraq isn't the real goal.

Gotta say, I 100% disagree with you. Firstly, at this point, the UN has declared (since the beginning of the war) that we cannot take the oil there. Ergo, it would not make sense to dump money into something that the 'desired return' now equals zero. They wouldn't be considering more troops.

The military commanders, the generals and admirals, are definitely fighting for stability. Stability would mean returning home, and fewer losses of our own troops.

I truly believe that Bush went in with the ideals of 'spreading democracy' and 'stabilizing' the middle east. He wanted to create a legacy for him and his family, as well as do what his father failed to do. I think the problem is that the higher-ups are working with "ideals" instead of truths and realism, perhaps like a little kid trying to bring a fairy tale to life. I've never questioned that they meant to stabilize Iraq. I do question the methodologies, but shall not get into the specifics of that. I also do not know what to change, in terms of tactics, with an enemy that fights with disregard for even it's own countries people.

I was going to mention this in my post, just in case someone would think I meant the real reason was Oil, which, I believe, it was not. No, the real reason was political, to send a message to the world. America wants to show these so called "rogue states" namely Iraq, Iran and N.Korea that they can't defy America's will. How should they do this though? By arbitrarily invading one of the countries in question. Why Iraq? because Iraq's army was small, it had no WMDs, and its leader was generally disliked in the world community. An easier target than Iran and definitely easier than North Korea. Basically its recreating the Cold War so everyone will rally behind the USA once again.

[Foxchild]

"it had no WMDs..."

This is the only segment I'll put any resistance to. While it's true we found no nukes, emp bombs, or anything that could effect a large large scale area, we still did find long-range scuds, which Iraq had signed a treaty claiming they would not harbor or produce, as well as a supply of mustard gas and other chemical warfare weapons. The intended use for the chem-weapons is unknown, so whichever on that. For those, Iraq had broken the prior treaty, and technically that gave us reason to invade (by the terms of the prior treaty.) That segment, though, can be placed right in line with your theory, as another reason Iraq was 'chosen'.

Otherwise, I'll say that theory is well thought out, and one I can respect (if not agree with). Well thought out, Comrade. =)