Do you agree with Saddam Hussein being executed?

Question

I
We actually armed Saddam when he was fighting Iran.

Western governments did more than turn a blind eye, though, to Iraq's use of chemical weapons in the 1980s. The US in particular supplied the material, logistical information, political backing and finance to Saddam Hussein’s regime

We were actually the ones to give him the power to start wars in the first place. How can WE say that Saddam should die when WE actually gave him a few weapons of mass destruction in thel first place! How can we sentence a man to death when our leaders have started an unlawful war in Iraq. I agree that Saddam has done some terrible things in the past, but what about other dictators such as Mugabe? why do we do nothing about him? Look at the mess in Africa and we do nothing.
Iraq's assault on Iran, then the West's enemy-in-chief, involved the use of mustard agents, and the nerve gases sarin and tabun, from 1981/82 to 1988. Thousands of Iranian conscripts were choked to death in the first years of the war, and Iranian civilians were targeted with chemical agents as part of a campaign of terror. This was the context in which the Iraqi regime learnt not to worry about the prospect of international condemnation, however murderous its acts.
http://middleeastreference.org.uk/llb020916a.html

I know that every single country in the world is to blame for something. Go back in time and every country has done something they shouldn't of. There was the British Empire, who did dreadful things, the IRA was funded largely by Americans who didn't care about terrorism when English people were getting blown up. The British were the first people ever to gas the kurds. We gave Saddam weapons to fight, if we care so much about what he does now, why didn't we in the past? It was not that long ago, it happened in the 80's! Why do we never do anything about Africa? that's what I can't understand? Thousands were massacred in Rwanda.

Eric-ONE less dictator, woo hoo. We gave him the weapons to start killing others. If you think that we can get rid of one then ignore the rest, what's the point.

I am not blaming just the US at all, the Uk did the same. We did arm him to fight Iran. You are just refusing to see what we have done. It was in the 80's not a hundred years ago.

The war began when Iraq invaded Iran on 22 September 1980 following a long history of border disputes and demands for the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime.

So correct me if I'm wrong-Iraq invaded Iran and then the US and UK armed him. So why are we now executing Saddam?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Iraq_War

So are we tyrants for bombing innocent people who we are 'liberating'. Ask Iraqi's if they want us to liberate them by blowing up their children and wrecking their lives. I wonder what they would say. And I am not just blaming the US. Are you all saying this war was to get rid of Saddam, I thought it was about weapons if mass destruction? Oh that's right there weren't any.

Running Tree: did the Iraqi's capture Saddam? no we did.

I think the world would be a better place without someone like him in it, but I'm afraid we were part of the problem why he got away with alot of things. He actually thought we were his ally, and we were. We should take a look at our own leaders, before we go around trying to sort out everyone else.

If you put it that way, if I started dealing drugs, would I be arrested for doing that? hmm, yes....All the dealers should say 'it's not my fault that a kid overdosed on them'. We can't just go around handing weapons to everyone then not feel the slightest bit guilty when he uses them for evil reasons. Lets give some axes to a known serial killer then wash our hands and say 'it's not our fault' when he starts murdering people.

Answer 1

The United States is the leading terrorist state in the world. The United States ignores United Nations decisions, and International Court rulings and leads our country empirically against other countries.

As an example, Nicaragua won a historic case against the U.S. at the International Court of Justice in 1986, and the U.S. was ordered to pay Nicaragua some $12 billion in reparations for violating Nicaraguan sovereignty by engaging in attacks against it. The United States withdrew its acceptance of the Court and argued it had no authority in matters of sovereign state relations. The U.S. government refused to pay restitutions, even when a United Nations General Assembly resolution on the matter was passed.

The United States uses terrorists and tyrants like Saddam Hussein to their advantage when they can, and then they dispose of them.

I believe that Saddam Hussein is historically one of the better rulers that the Middle East has seen. This is made evident in the modernization of Iraq. Iraq is light years ahead of other countries in the region. He did not have weapons of mass destruction, and Iraq was invaded on false pretenses. The United Nations suggested that we should not engage in this war, and yet we again prove our ignorance and empirical ambitions by doing it anyway. We are going to cost the region billions of dollars in order to rebuild. His trial found him guilty of crimes he committed in 1982, nearly a quarter of a century ago. The United States backed him and condoned his actions then. His acts were in an effort to route out the bandit groups of people who attempted to assassinate him. Also, Iraqi laws and traditions are quite different than those of the United States. Saddam Hussein was an elected official who was placed in power by the hands of his own people election after election. Most over there would still rather if he were in power. I don't believe he's the best guy, or even a good guy for that matter, but I never have supported execution for anyone regardless of the crime. Incarcerate him for eternity if you like, but regardless of someone's actions or what they may or may not have done, who are we to take their life in our own hands?

Answer 2

Though Saddam Hussein was an evil dictator who killed thousands, has anyone ever thought about who put him in power or who gave him his weapons of mass destruction. It was none other that the US itself. The US is using Saddam Hussein as a reason to go in Iraq and take all of their oil. It's that simple. On the show Democracy Now they had an interview showing that Saddam Hussein was willing to recognize Israel if they were to come up with a solution that Palestinians were to agree to. Was that interview shown in the US of course not, because if it was that would mean that we wouldn't be able to go to Iraq and take their oil. The reason that Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait was because they were doing something that affected their currency and they were losing money. When they asked them to stop they didn't. If Saddam didn't invade Kuwait then they would end being bellow the poverty line. Should Saddam be executed, yes he should since he agreed to cooperate with the united states to kill so many in Iran, but the truth is that people in charge of the US such as George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Condolessa Rice should have been executed long before that.

Answer 3

The facts still remains that Saddam is a tyrant and a murderer. As long as he is alive, his followers will continue to act violently. If he's freed or exiled, the problem remains. If he's sent to heaven, he may become a martyr, but at least he's not around to cause additional strife. Your statements regarding his rise to power and the source of his weapons cache are all true. However, Saddam followed his inner voice in utilizing these for his rise to power. You're trying to argue that the US government is responsible because we supplied him. If a welfare recipient traded food stamps for weapons and then wreaked mass murder, would he be innocent because the government gave him the means? Your argument is ridiculous.

Answer 4

Until the US applies the same criteria to Israel as it does to the rest of the Middle East, it lacks the credibility to even give an opinion on the politics of this region, let alone arrange for its puppet government to murder someone after a trial that Stalin would have been proud of.

Answer 5

"We" may have captured him in that spider hole, but we turned him over to Iraqi authorities. He was tried by an Iraqi judge, found guilty by a jury of Iraqis and condemned to death according to Iraqi law. So please, stop saying "we" did this to him. The fact that we armed him doesn't get him off the hook any better than a murderer killing someone with a gun just because he got the gun from someone else.

Additional comment:
Your drug dealer/kid overdosed analogy would hold ground if Saddam gassed himself with those chem weapons we gave him. Reagan backed Saddam, yes.
And why wouldn't Reagan back him in a war against Iran? Iran was our enemy during the 80's, not to mention at the time, during a little thing called the Cold War, Iran was friends with....wait for it....the Soviet Union. So of course the U.S was going to back Iraq in that war following the old proverb "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" like we did with Stalin against Hitler. It was a very difficult time back then so difficult decisions were made like arming a psycho with chem weapons Would you please try to know and understand history?.

Answer 6

There are some conflicts here.

If the current Iraqi government is to be credible, it has to do what it feels is right, without accepting pressure from outside But the West pretty much determined the government.

Capital punishment and civilisation do not go together.

If he is not executed, and in say, a years time, the West evacuates from Iraq, what happens next ? He might not get into power, but could be a problem.

Answer 7

We sided with Stalin against Hitler, too. Because Hitler was worse. Didn't mean we were such big fans of Stalin.

As to Mugabe, are you saying we should topple every dictator on earth? Or are you saying we shouldn't ever topple any dictators? What are you saying?

I'm very thankful that Saddam is out of power. I hope freedom blooms in Iraq and all over the Middle East.

Do you have a better plan for helping the citizens/victims of all those dictatorships? Just wishing don't make it so. Bush is trying. Why don't we help him?

Support the mission. Liberate Iraq.

Answer 8

What do you mean 'we'. The Iraqi government tried and convicted Hussein.

I suppose you would be happier if the US had jurisdiction to try him in a US court so he could spend the rest of his life in some cushy Federal Prison somewhere. Yes, US military forces 'captured' him then turned him over to the Iraqis. What do you suppose 'we' should have done with him?

You're not one of those yuppie college students are you? You know everything, don't you.

Answer 9

you're ignorant for thinking the U.S. provided him with weapons when we fought them in the gulf war for the protection of kuwait and even now in the iraq war. last time i checked, weapons used by saddam were communist made. i.e. russian T-72 tanks, AK-47 assault rifles, and other weapons sold to them from communist nations. the U.S. is not communist, in case you didnt know. besides, saddam is responsible for the deaths of thousands, maybe millions. he conducted chemical tests on his own people. he is a threat to mankind and needs to be removed. remember hitler? responsible for the deaths of literally millions. kill saddam and save the world a lot of heart ache. and do your research before you start to blame the U.S. for crap we're trying to help fix. no country is perfect, and the U.S. just doesnt have the sheer numbers of military personel to be everywhere at once. iraq was a big threat and was (and still is) in a big mess. deal with the bigger problems first, and then move on to the next, like Mugabe. if you dont like the way this country is run and functions, go live somewhere else. if you support iraq and its policies while suddam was in power, then move to iraq. we dont want you anyway if our military is going to fight for your protection and you bash the very country they fight to protect. saddam is an evil man and needs to be dealt with. regardless of what you think

Answer 10

I don't agree with murder state sponsered or otherwise, your reason though are weak i am afraid to say. if you go back far enough it was the germans fault. I am not saying we ought to blame them for double dealing and cowardice during the crusades, I am saying that you can't pick bits of history and supplant them into different periods for the point of blame.
We also helped create the taliban, go back a little further and china belongs to the UK, or Japan or the Mongols. get the idea?