bush yes, not blair, we dont have the death penalty here :P

 

Mate, you miss my point, both Bush and B-Liar should be hauled up before the same Iraqi court Saddam was, he received no quarter or the niceties of a war crimes trial at The Hague, so why should they....? Saddam's crimes were against the people of Iraq, so are Bush and Blair's.....

 

If I murder somone in the US while I'm on holiday, then I get put on trial in the US (and face the possibility of a Death Penalty..), not over here....

The media circus surrounding this makes me SICK. Now tomorrow on the train and at the office I'll have to listen to a bunch of dumbasses saying "Well, yeah, he was a terrible man. I guess justice has been served." WHAT THE **** DO YOU KNOW? And why the **** pretend like you give a ****? All of this just proves Bush won despite his idiotic failure. Saddam is the enemy because he has WMD and is a threat to the world. oh, wait, no, Saddam is the enemy because he was a cruel dictator over the poor, noble Iraqis. "Operation Iraqi Freedom" and other such bull$h!t. Meanwhile Iraqis shrug and go on trying to SURVIVE in the WARZONE that Iraq has become and western papers have the nerve to headline Saddam's verdict in the largest possible print??? And worse, people here actually PRETEND like they GIVE A $h!t???

 

Sorry if this rambling makes no sense but I'm just livid right now.

 

No, you're quite right to be livid, these fukkers want us to just totally forget the whole original reason that they gave for the war... it was sod all to do with 'regime change' or the fact that Saddam just wasn't a very nice man, or the Kurds or the Marsh Arabs, those things were incidental.... The No1 reasons were WMDs, and the Ba'athist's supposed links to Al Qaeda... Both of those reasons were bullsh!t, so they had to big-up the incidental reasons.... There were no Al Qaeda members in Iraq, until we went in, created a very dangerous power vacuum which allowed them all to come flooding over the border from places like Syria and Saudi Arabia....

 

If this had truly been about stopping Al Qaeda, then we would've bombed the terrorist training camps in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia as opposed to engaging in a costly (and not just in monetary terms..) invasion...

No, you're quite right to be livid, these fukkers want us to just totally forget the whole original reason that they gave for the war... it was sod all to do with 'regime change' or the fact that Saddam just wasn't a very nice man, or the Kurds or the Marsh Arabs, those things were incidental.... The No1 reasons were WMDs, and the Ba'athist's supposed links to Al Qaeda... Both of those reasons were bullsh!t, so they had to big-up the incidental reasons.... There were no Al Qaeda members in Iraq, until we went in, created a very dangerous power vacuum which allowed them all to come flooding over the border from places like Syria and Saudi Arabia....

 

If this had truly been about stopping Al Qaeda, then we would've bombed the terrorist training camps in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia as opposed to engaging in a costly (and not just in monetary terms..) invasion...

 

Exactly

 

This war was entirely to do with oil and of feathering the nests of companies like Halliburton who bankroll the Republicans and America getting another voice on OPEC, Bush is sitting on his arse while Mugabe is doing ethnic cleansing in Zimbabwe and while hundreds and thousands are dying in the civil war in Sudan but what is he doing about it ? **** all, no oil there so not his problem

 

What is Bush doing about Indonesia and their atrocities in East Timor ?? selling the Indonesian government fukkin short range missiles and planes :rolleyes: hmmm no oil in Indonesia so not his problem if they ethnically cleanse in East Timor

...And two wrongs don't make a right either JJN.....

 

Russ is hardly saying that Saddam is somehow 'innocent'..... He's saying that certain others are every bit as guilty and should also be punished....

 

So in this thread people should not be arguing about the sentence of Saddam, but about the sentence Bush and Blair should receive... If there are 2 murders, one goes to the electric chair and the other remains free, you will not try to give freedom to the one on the electric chair, but try to catch the other.

I don't think death is a right way of punishment. I don't agree with what Saddam did was right either invading Kwait. I think it's a sick way of punishment especially hanging! Rotting in prison for life means he will serve his time for what he did!

 

But there are hundreads of people who are sentence to death in the world every year for much more insignificant crimes and nobody complains about that... When a massive murderer is sentenced, then the polemic about capital punishment starts?

Good :D

So in this thread people should not be arguing about the sentence of Saddam, but about the sentence Bush and Blair should receive... If there are 2 murders, one goes to the electric chair and the other remains free, you will not try to give freedom to the one on the electric chair, but try to catch the other.

 

Well, I'm against the Death Penalty on a general principle anyway, but that's irrelevant, Iraq has it so until such time as it is abolished then that's just the way it is.. Bush is Pro-Death penalty, so it is absolutely correct that he should be hoisted by his own petard because simply, this is what he believes....

 

I dont particularly care what happens to Saddam in the end, my concern is the sheer hipocrisy by which this whole thing has been conducted.. I want to see all three of these fukkers dangling from a rope at the end of the day, because that is the penalty for murder in Iraq and all three have committed acts of mass homicide upon the people of Iraq.....

isn't it a coincidence that Saddam is found guilty 2 days before the US mid term elections, or am I being too suspicious.

 

Seems to me it will give Bush's party a distinct help, when they were likely to lose badly. :angry:

isn't it a coincidence that Saddam is found guilty 2 days before the US mid term elections, or am I being too suspicious.

 

Seems to me it will give Bush's party a distinct help, when they were likely to lose badly. :angry:

 

Well, Bush was taking a total dump in the polls until the weekend, now all of a sudden, the gap has lessened somewhat....

 

Make of that what you will...

 

I'm not delving too deep into this because i'm not as politically minded as some of you (yes Scott, I mean you :lol: ) but this is the way I see it:

 

Saddam is a murderer, they believe in capital punishment, therefore a murderer is sentenced to death.

 

So, is the less of an arguement of who's done what, but more of an arguement of whether capital punishment is still acceptable in society in 2006?

I'm not delving too deep into this because i'm not as politically minded as some of you (yes Scott, I mean you :lol: ) but this is the way I see it:

 

Saddam is a murderer, they believe in capital punishment, therefore a murderer is sentenced to death.

 

So, is the less of an arguement of who's done what, but more of an arguement of whether capital punishment is still acceptable in society in 2006?

 

 

You cant really disentangle the elements of the issue though Kelz.. Saddam is a murderer, you are correct, but Bush and Blair are also murderers... The only difference is, they're the murderers who won - history is written by the winners and all that, so we should be incredibly sceptical of what the 'facts' really are, recent history (ie, the actual reasons we went into Iraq) were very hastily revised after no WMDs were actually found (of course if we'd listened to Hans Blix in the first place we could've saved ourselves a LOT of grief....). The Iraq war was NOT a situation like WW2 when our very survival depended upon stopping lots of Germans invading us, Saddam was never a threat to British or US security, I wouldn't even say it was a situation like the former Yugoslavia where we actually DID have a moral obligation because, well, it was sodding Europe and as we are Europeans, we should have acted a damn sight sooner because it was in our general sphere of influence, we are also shirking our moral obligations in Zimbabwe (a member of the sodding COMMONWEALTH, so of course it's our business what goes on there....). The Middle East is politically and culturally sweet FA to do with us and nothing we've ever done there historically has actually worked out for the benefit of the people there.....

Well yes you're right, i'm just trying to simplify the situation because there's too much typing in here. :lol:

 

But Scott, if the USA/UK hadn't invaded Iraq and none of this "war" had ever happened. Do you still think Saddam should be sentenced to death? :unsure:

so obv. the outcome innit

Well yes you're right, i'm just trying to simplify the situation because there's too much typing in here. :lol:

 

But Scott, if the USA/UK hadn't invaded Iraq and none of this "war" had ever happened. Do you still think Saddam should be sentenced to death? :unsure:

 

If the war had never happened, Saddam would either still be in power or toppled by an internal coup d'etat or revolution (either of which is preferable to what has actually occurred..). If he'd been toppled internally, I doubt he'd've lived to even see a trial, nevermind be sentenced to death...

 

Even if he'd've remained in power, he's an old man, I reckon he'd be dead in a decade or so anyway...

 

If the war had never happened, Saddam would either still be in power or toppled by an internal coup d'etat or revolution (either of which is preferable to what has actually occurred..). If he'd been toppled internally, I doubt he'd've lived to even see a trial, nevermind be sentenced to death...

 

Even if he'd've remained in power, he's an old man, I reckon he'd be dead in a decade or so anyway...

But aside from Bush/Blair, do you think he deserves death?

But aside from Bush/Blair, do you think he deserves death?

 

I dont really care that much to be honest... I cant honestly say I'm sorry that he's gonna get his just desserts, but in principle I'm against the death penalty unless the evidence is utterly compelling and fool-proof, and I'm also against it when it serves the political ends of a party or State... So, in principle Saddam deserves it, but because it serves the interests of Bush/Blair I oppose it...

 

It's a tough call, is what I'm saying.... All three of 'em dangling on a rope is my preference.... :lol:

 

 

But for someone who is responsible for deaths of his family and thousands of the people he controlls, then I think he should have been punished in a hard way.

The death penalty is extreme, but if he is going to be in prison for life they might as well just hang him

but if he is going to be in prison for life they might as well just hang him

 

I was thinking that.

 

They should bring back the death penalty. Life doesn't mean life nowdays.

But for someone who is responsible for deaths of his family and thousands of the people he controlls, then I think he should have been punished in a hard way.

The death penalty is extreme, but if he is going to be in prison for life they might as well just hang him

 

Prison is a better way, how long does a hanging take ? neck is broken in 2 or 3 seconds whereas prison for the rest of life knowing will be confined to a 12ft x 6ft room forever will be mental torture, I would far prefer he was jailed for life and lived for another 20 years of waking up every morning in the same cold dark cell

But imagine how horrible it would feel to know you're getting hanged.