i think that he should have of had life in prison on hard labor with no chance of parol.
2006-12-30 03:02:07 · 18 answers · asked by gordon h 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
we didn't convict him. or sentence him. or hang him. these actions were taken by his peers/ex-subjects in Iraq
2006-12-30 03:05:22 · answer #1 · answered by srthomsen90605 1 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The punishment meted out to a former head of state should be decided by the country that was governed. In this case Saddam although imprisoned still had power over citizens of Iraq through his loyal following and henchmen, the powers that be in Iraq felt it would be better for the country (and probably there laws as well) if Saddam was executed.
Now mind you his crimes are numerous and based on these crimes the Iraq judicial system states he deserves death by hanging. No other sentence could have been given to Saddam unless the Iraqi laws were rewritten.
2006-12-30 03:41:21 · answer #2 · answered by YoungAtHeart 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because winners make history and for the reasons stated above it didn't suit the winners, ie the Allies, to hang Hirohito. And for answers to suggest that Iraq alone is responsible for hanging Saddam is totally naive. The Americans wanted him hanged and arranged that he should be, under the cover of an Iraqi kangaroo court (changing judges twice in the midst of a trial, ye gods!) As has been pointed out elsewhere, eg on BBC boards, the noose was American style and the guys in the black balaclavas looked more American than Arab. I don't have any sympathy for Saddam, but to make him look the good guy (so much more poised than those around him) and a martyr was stupid indeed and his execution, I prophesy, will cause more trouble than had it not taken place.
2006-12-30 03:31:37 · answer #3 · answered by rdenig_male 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Your comparison is very timely.
Many Americans remember that our General Macarthur imposed a constitutional form of democracy upon Japan after WW2.
He wisely left the Emperor as a figurehead to keep the Japanese united under his symbolic leadership.
Unlike Saddam Hussein, the Emperor was not guilty of war crimes.
Saddam was a vicious dictator who killed in order to attain control of Iraq. Then he continued to kill and torture its people to maintain his power over them.
The Emperor of Japan was a symbol of the monarchy in Japan, rather like the Queen of England.
With little real political power, the Emperor could not stop the Japanese military from starting a war with America.
But, after the war was lost, he helped his people to find their way in a new world.
In Iraq there is no uniting man or office for the people to find common ground.
The party of Saddam is a minority of the people.
The Sunniis were the rulers under Saddam.
The Shiites were the majority; the ones who were forced to submit to Saddam's cruel reign.
Long before Saddam came to power, the Shiites had oppressed the Sunniis.
The memory of these oppressions fuels the hatred and killing we see in Iraq today.
No army, foreign or domestic, can erase those memories.
An Iraq with Sunnii, Shiite and Kurdish peoples cannot be unified.
Therefore the hope of an enduring democracy is doomed to fail.
Civil war; a war that is dividing the nation into separate regions of separate influence is under way right now.
The cruelty of Saddam forced these antagonists to live together under his authority.
Democracy merely freed them to spill one another's blood each day in the streets.
The people of Iraq rightly tried and hanged their cruel dictator.
Macarthur wisely spared the Emperor of Japan.
2006-12-30 03:53:47 · answer #4 · answered by T K 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The Japanese Emperor was not a self-imposed dictator over Japan. The Japanese revered their Emperor so much that to have removed him would have caused a heap of problems and MacArthur was more concerned about creating a buffer nation against the Russians.
And the US did execute a number of Japanese war criminals like Tojo.
Saddam placed himself in power and executed his rivals. He was not revered by many of the people as this trial shows. It's the Iraqis who decided to hang him not the Americans - though Bush is no doubt pleased as punch.
2006-12-30 03:11:33 · answer #5 · answered by samurai_dave 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
I don't think the comparison is very good. Japanese leaders, including Tojo, were tried and executed. Emperor Hirohito was not viewed as having been culpable for Japanese atrocities in WWII. It was also thought that ny remaining in power he could help the transition to democracy following the war.
2006-12-30 03:07:51 · answer #6 · answered by snide76258 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
this is totally troublesome to communicate about might want to/might want to/might want to for historic concerns. what's performed is performed and we ought to stay with it and bypass on. yet i imagine the achievable challenge of what Japan might want to have lengthy previous by placed up-WW2 if there change into the inability of life of the Imperial relatives is a very interesting one to locate. it would want to were the first revolution of their historic previous. in my opinion as an American i'm hostile to monarchies. u.s. bombed Japan yet spared the Imperial relatives. We enable Japan keep the monarchy inspite of the indisputable fact that we altered it. We respected their way of existence in that way and different techniques in the course of the warfare. some argue there are warfare crimes and those must be punished. To me, all is honest in warfare, warfare is complete, it does not exclude human beings, bombs do not bypass over civilians, so in that experience to barriers are to punish all or neither. it truly is the victor's decision. We chosen now to not punish all. some argue that Hirohito as a puppet emperor wasn't responsible for the crimes and may want to not be charged. also as an Okinawan i imagine that one and all eastern responsible on the suitable for the warfare might want to were punished. possibly renouncing that he's a god change into punishment sufficient for Hirohito and eastern way of existence.
2016-12-01 08:15:06 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Respond to crime by crime and you become one with the oppressor...it seems great powers never learn
But, as the Latin saying goes: the victor may impose any conditions he pleases upon the vanquished.
Fortunately, a nation's state of grace and glory only lasts for a brief moment in history...it is written on fast waves and winds...it comes and goes
tables turn...
2006-12-30 04:30:02 · answer #8 · answered by alex 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Keeping the emperor alive was essential in maintaining control in Japan. Iraq is gonna do what it wants no matter who is in charge.
2006-12-30 03:11:47 · answer #9 · answered by abby 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Saddam is a much worse guy than the emperor of Japan.
2006-12-30 03:05:16 · answer #10 · answered by colleenicole! 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
America never hanged the AMERICAN leaders who committed in WW2 the unwitting soldiers to death and disease with atomic testing either, knowing full well the consequences, nor did they hang anyone for disfiguring and mutating babies with thalidomide, although several states apologized.
2006-12-30 03:42:43 · answer #11 · answered by bumppo 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋