genreal?
2006-12-31 01:16:38
·
answer #1
·
answered by Bawney 6
·
3⤊
0⤋
it seems a little to simple somehow. all of the coverage we have had over the past 10-15 years, for him to be hung quietly and quickly....
No it is never right to justify voilence with more violence, but there needs to be a strong message sent....With war comes retribution. With crime comes punishment. we are too lenient on criminals generally, and it means that they do not fear retribution.
Make it a public declaration that crime and violence do not pay, and they you can never be above the law, and i'm sure we will on the way to world peace.!........but alas, the human rights convention is in place. so those that deal in genocide, murder and violence still somehow have rights.!....
I say if you choose to opt out of the human rights convention, then it should not apply to you when you get caught.
2006-12-31 01:18:54
·
answer #2
·
answered by Cy 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
The Americans have been after saddam for a long time. Not for crimes against humanity or other moral issues, but because Iraq has big reserves of oil and saddam was threatening to sell it for Euros and not Dollars (like the Iranians) and other "axis of evil" countries. Don't be fooled by what the Americans and British tell you. Iraq in turmoil is good for the West, Saddam was just a pawn in a bigger game. I for one, cannot wait for the Trial and Executions of George Bush and Tony Blair, for their crimes against humanity
2006-12-31 01:31:44
·
answer #3
·
answered by Grogsy34 2
·
0⤊
2⤋
I dont agree with the hanging . But i think they used Saddam as an example . It was meant to bring peace to those who have been affected by him . And make a point . I cant see how we can say we live in a civilised world . oh well .
2006-12-31 01:16:48
·
answer #4
·
answered by lauren a 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
The orders to kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqi's came from Saddam. The military officers had no choice but to follow orders... or else THEIR family had to pay for a bullet as well.
2006-12-31 01:17:13
·
answer #5
·
answered by Don Quixote 2
·
2⤊
0⤋
It's unfortunate that you don't differentiate between a man who kills and tortures for entertainment, and one who serves and protects his country. Saddam killed entire families to maintain control of his country. People weren't permitted to speak out against him. If somebody like Cindy Sheehan spoke up in Iraq, she and her entire family would have been tortured and murdered.
That's why!
2006-12-31 01:31:52
·
answer #6
·
answered by TechTeachr2000 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
There is a marked difference between war and genocide and murder.
Capital punishment for murder and rape is justified because it is good for society, is proven to drastically reduce murder rates and the buggers usually deserve it.
Death happens, get over your self you liberal ponce, war and killing and hanging may not be very nice or aesthetic, but that, my friend, is life.
2006-12-31 03:08:20
·
answer #7
·
answered by AndyB 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Tony liar says hes against the death penalty. But sends our troops to kill people all over the world. Maybe some lives are more important than others!. Don't suppose us mere mortals understand.
2006-12-31 01:21:21
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
I am going to guess you are celebrating new years eve a bit early, and maybe been dipping into the spiked punch a tad much. Pls don't drink and drive.
2006-12-31 01:22:06
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
This post takes stupid to a whole new level. It's obvious that you have no idea how to differentiate between someone acting to defend their Country and allies from someone who commits acts of mass murder to remain in absolute power. The only irony here is that your spelling is as flawed as your logic.
2006-12-31 01:17:57
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
1⤋
Worse tyrants than Saddam have received a state funeral
2006-12-31 03:02:28
·
answer #11
·
answered by David R 5
·
0⤊
0⤋