I say yes..we should have shot the bas**rd when we found him in that hole.The liberal ,namby pamby human rights lot will probably say " Ah! No! he must have been deprived of his dummy(pacifier) when he was young...that's why he gassed so many of his innocent subjects. Give him community service then let him go after a week..he will have learnt his lesson". .... I do n't .... string him up by the ba**s.
2006-12-26 10:16:52 · 44 answers · asked by Anonymous in News & Events ➔ Current Events
To those claiming he didn't get a "fair trial", tell that to the many Iraqis who had their relatives tortured and/or executed. They can certainly tell you a thing or two about "unfair trials". His trial was a thousand times more fair than what he ever gave to Iraqis (Those that DID get a trial before imprisoment/execution, that is)
2006-12-26 16:50:17 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
What is the point of killing Saddam? He will die naturally by himself in a few years anyway - probably before Bush and Blair expire. Couldn't we learn something from history, such as Napoleon after Waterloo? The British government seemed a lot smarter back then than that ugly dog sitting in No. 10 nowadays. Killing Saddam would not make things right for the dog and its owner, nor would it wash off their bloody paws and hands. This is no Hollywood movie with fake blood and fake bullets. Please think twice when you decide to support the killing of yet another human being. For when Saddam dies, hundreds or even thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians will be killed as well. Are your sons and daughters going to be among them? Would you care more if they were exposed to such danger? This war was started without the permission from the United Nations. Saddam was only defending his country against the illegal invaders when he was captured. He is a bad guy who killed his own country men; however there is no evidence that he sponsored terrorism to harm the United States nor the United Kingdom. Is Iraq better now than four yeas ago? When the Japanese Imperial Army invaded China in the 1930's, they also said they wanted to "liberate" China. They ended up killing more Chinese civilians than the six million Jews killed by Hitler's S.S. Guards. Why the Americans did not execute the Empror of Japan when they captured Tokyo at the end of World War Two?
2006-12-26 14:03:24 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
How 'bout we stage it in the largest arena possible, and of course, televise it, (start selling the commercial spots now!), pregame coverage, people could do the wave!, t-shirts the works!!! And I am sure the bookies can come up with some aspect on which to bet...
Illustrating a point out to its absurd limits as above is often useful. However, in this case, it would be sold out in milliseconds.
I despair of and for humanity when I think about it.
2006-12-26 10:42:03 · answer #3 · answered by and_y_knot 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes
2006-12-26 18:48:32 · answer #4 · answered by leged56 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
While accepting that this is a very evil man I rather doubt that he could ever get a fair trial and also doubt that we, the west have the right to try him, he was leader of his country , we did the same to Noriaga of Panama.
Because a law says something is illegal doesnt make it moral, I.E Hitler and the Jews. allowing Homosexuals to marry is the law in some places but that is certainly immoral
2006-12-27 06:45:43 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No.Executing a human being in this day and age is barbaric and unnecessary, if we want to be seen as civilised and forward thinking we should not support this form of punishment, if we are ok being regarded as mere animals and having no moral conscience then there are no limits to the depravity we can achieve and peace and harmony will never reign on this earth.
2006-12-26 14:52:01 · answer #6 · answered by zarnticolz 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Have a look at who gave him the weapons in the first place. We did, we armed him. Iraq invaded Iran in 1980 and we gave him the weapons to fight. The first people ever to gas the kurds were the British. He wasn't deprived of a dummy he was given the right to kill people in the 80's, by us.
2006-12-26 12:17:03 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Well thankfully he was tried in a recognised court and therefore the case has been through the full rigour of the law .After being sentenced to death, the accused appealed the decision and after due consideration the sentence was confirmed: death by hanging. I cannot agree with your, "hang them high, ask questions later" mentality. Two wrongs cannot make a right.
2006-12-26 10:22:27 · answer #8 · answered by Raymo 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Is he guilty? You bet! Is killing him going to make our lives any better? Nope, but it will probably make it worse. The Sunnis are going to up in arms if he goes to the noose and it will be the 'free world' that will suffer. I can't answer any more definitively because I don't know the answer, but taking one life for the thousands he took doesn't make it right, and won't change a thing. This answer surprises me, but I suspect it is written more from fear of the unknown than what I truly believe. Happy New Year To you all and please be safe! XX
2006-12-26 10:55:06 · answer #9 · answered by maria bartoninfrance 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No,he shouldn't be executed...I am against the death penalty,so I don't think killing him is the right thing to do...
Yes,Saddam is guilty of many things,including murder,but he would have deserved a fair trial,not the play put in scene by a court that is a marionette of the US...
2006-12-26 19:20:40 · answer #10 · answered by Tinkerbell05 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋