Do you agree that the execution of Sadam was not right?

Question

The premise I would argue would be that Rudolf Hess was kept alive after WW2 in a Berlin Jail till he died, the other argument is you do keep the moral high ground if you dont kill keeping the commandments it also shows strength and the capability of mercy which are important cultral graces that need tobe held up like a light of good conduct to neighbour and nation/s.

Answer 1

Hess was only indirectly responsible, many other Nazis were executed because they bore direct responsibility for the holocaust. Sadam bore direct responsibility, if you factor in the deaths in the Iran-Iraq War, Gulf War I, his killing of the Kurds, etc, he is directly responsible for over 1 million deaths.

Answer 2

The execution of the mass murderer Saddam Hussein was absolutely justified. The way the Iraqis carried out the execution was horrific and shows the world that these people are not ready for a democracy. They are still tent dwellers who have not learned what civilization is all about. As far as the ten commandments please don't make me laugh. The ten commandments are good but rarely followed. Just look at how many executions were done by the Catholic church in the middle ages (Inquisition), Crusades, War of the Roses, and on and on.Rudolf Hess wasn't executed because he was declared a lunatic. Had he been sane he would have been hanged. The Ten Commandments are good words and thoughts but they do not work.

Answer 3

though i agree with the people who say that he should not have been hanged, the reason for the urgency shown by USA to his hanging was to gain popularity amongst the people who were against him. Iran considers USA its enemy and also Iraq/Saddam Hussain/Sunnis. So when USA is doing the Job which Iran wanted to do then naturally their opinion of USA is changed( that is what USA is trying to do). Invading Iraq has nothing to do with Liberation from Saddam/ WMD/ Democracy etc. Saddam Hussain refuses to listen to USA so an excuse is needed to eliminate him at whatever cost.Now you will find a Fragmented set up in the middle east where Kurds, Sunnis, Shias, Jews will be put in cold war so that they do not bother the U.S. and all their energies are spent amongst themselves. A good example is U.S. and other countries kept India busy with the help of Pakistan, not that India was harming U.S. but that is the way it is. Terrorism is an act where the common people are kept in endless uncertinity and fear.Only the the US arm forces knew what Terrorism was till now but after 9/11 the common people of U.S. have started understanding. Saddam Hussain was eliminated to calm thing in Iraq( U.S. policy) I would have prefered him to be kept alive to get extract more from the the situation but George Bush is in a Hurry. He is President and the only one who has guts to do whatever he thinks its right. He is Trying his best to do whatever it takes to get away from the mess he is landed into. I am sure He never dreamt that it could be this.
subsequently i agree with srinivas_cochin . When U.S. Invaded Iraq the reason was WMD and not the reasons shown now. All these talks of mass murders, what was done at that time nothing. Saddam has been made a Matyr now. It will be last thing to attack IRAN, Iraq was fragile without Saddam, he held it together , now there will be a three way split between Kurds Sunnis and Shias. If U.S. invades Iran that will be the last war

Answer 4

I tend to agree that the execution of Saddam was wrong; I am, by instinct, fundamentally opposed to the death penalty.

However your comparison with Rudolf Hess is a false one: Hess spent World War II in a British prison, after fleeing to Scotland in 1940, and was therefore not involved in the horrific acts of genocide carried out by Hitler and his cronies.

A more accurate question to ponder would be: would you have executed Hitler had he been captured alive? This is, for me at least, a much harder question to answer morally.

Answer 5

Well no, I don't think it was right because I just can't get my head around the death penalty (pressumably because we don't have it in the UK) but the Iraqis do have the death penalty and I can completely understand why those who suffered under Saddam would want him to die. Very mixed feelings then and I've come to the conclusion that our press and media should not be going on about it as it's really nothing to do with us, if you see what I mean. By the way, I think the UK and US governments long ago lost the moral high ground.

Answer 6

Saddam was executed at last in his land by his own people.he deserved to have dead sentence cos of his cruelty to his people.i m here personally agreed it was a right execution.the case between Saddam n Rudolf Hess is different.there was no evidence that Rudolf was as cruel as this Saddam,he was just a helper only.

best wishes n happy new year.

Answer 7

You are absolutely correct and the political murder of President Saddam Hussein was a crime as bad as any of those he was accused and alleged to have sanctioned.
Most of the answerer's have no knowledge of the subject as is obvious from the silly and shallow answers to your question.
Unfortunately the majority of the general public of Iraq wishes he was back as they had a reasonable life under his rule.
It was a strict regime but acceptable within the context of the Middle East, it was much more free than Saudi Arabia or Egypt and was a modern society.
The USA has not only destroyed the infrastructure of Iraq but also the culture and unity of the Iraqi people.
The Iraqi's were a proud nation and they have been reduced to beggars with no water, electricity, food, jobs or education.
The USA is lifting 3million barrels of oil per day and runs the Oil Ministry, economy and government of Iraq.
The USA has installed its own bank (JP Morgan) and prevents the Iraqi bank (Rafidain) from operating.
This is a very big story and as usual the truth will only be told in years to come when the culprits will be retired and have granted themselves pardons from prosecution.
It is appalling that the new man (in the moon) in the UN failed to criticise the execution, another Kofi Annan.

Answer 8

I agree with you 100%. However, Bush was never going to allow Saddam to live, even in the remote chance that he was found Not Guilty, Bush would have found a way to kill him.

While Saddam may have been what is termed a ruthless leader, He had control of Iraq and if he were still in power today, even under U.S. Occupation, we wouldn't be having the massive killings and violence that exists there today.

Answer 9

It was a jury of his people that decided his fate and if they felt it was right to hang him, then I wouldn't argue with them. As for Rudolf Hess the German people have a different principle of what they do with people that commuted crimes against society.

Answer 10

It is funny how you can tell when a liberal answer this question their thoughts and feelings is more focus on the Victimizer (Sadamn) rather than all of the victims he harmed and killed. Sometimes I wonder if it is not a mental defect.