was it wright to kill saddam without mercy?

Answer 1

Without mercy? He had a trial, although it was a kangaroo court of sorts it was more than he gave his victims. He was never ask to account for more than a very small portion of those killed under his orders. Hanging might seem "merciless" but it was a fitting end, and the result is much the same as a bullet through the brain.

Answer 2

No, I don't think it was wright, nor was it right. I think when the neck snapped it went to the left.

But I do think he should have been kept alive longer. He could have provided so much more fun alive -More TV trials, more daffy court outbursts... Then, once all the trials ended, he could still provide some entertainment for the prison guards for a few years, or until he keeled over from boredom.

Mercy? Uh? What's that? -Something those under him never knew.

Answer 3

to Brhamjot k...... You make no sense, stop doing drugs girl.


Saddam got plenty of mercy. He recieved a fair trial, was convicted by Iraqis for crimes commited against Iraqis. He was then hung.

Who didnt get mercy was his victims. the ones he murdered at his whim, the ones he gassed with nerve gas (WMD). the ones he made just dissapear (whole families).

Saddam got more mercy than he deserved.


Another thing you need to keep in mind is this...

Saddam was tried, convicted, sentenced, and executed by the Iraqis. NOT the US.

US only acted as the arresting officer so to speak.

Answer 4

wright means a worker, esp. a constructive worker.

was it worker to kill saddam without mercy?[????]

if you mean was it right to kill saddam without mercy then
i say i wouldn't blink twice about it.

Answer 5

I believe Hussein got off easy. He was responsible for many more
deaths than he was held accountable for. He was tried in his own country, by his own people, convicted and finally executed. As for mercy, how does one execute someone else mercifully? When a murderer is put to death, why would he deserve mercy?

Answer 6

Saddam Hussien was tried and convicted by a jury in his own country, according to laws he put in place. He was sentenced to die by hanging by a jury of his peers. I think every i was dotted, every t was crossed.
The man was a monster, but having said all that, I don't believe in the death penalty. My personal belief is that we are not fit to judge another person to the degree of deciding that he or she doesn't deserve to live.

Answer 7

His hanging was as much an act of murder as any he was certainly guilty of. State endorsed murder is an act of hyprocrisy. It endorses 'an eye for eye' mentality. If murder is considered by society to be an illegal act, then how can it punished by a 'legal' act of murder.

This man could claim few fans among us to mourn his departure but his death was an act of barbarism by other men who felt morally superior, or was it revenge ? It had nothing to do with justice but the dark side of humanity. In our silence, there is a complicity.

Answer 8

No, it wasn't. He didn't show others mercy and the 'court' showed him that he was right in not showing mercy because no-one was going to show him mercy.

Besides, being dead, he becomes a martyr. Alive, he gets to live with and contemplate why he is rotting in a jail somewhere.

.

Answer 9

hi
i dont think it was a wrong decision.it was saddam who didnt show any mercy to his people and killed them bcoz they were nt ready to bow their heads before him and his evil ways.

Answer 10

no it was not.. The Americans have caused a lot more deaths and anguish to the Iraqui people in three years than sadam caused throught his whole reign...when will americans learn not to meddle?