Saddam Hussein?

Question

Was the execution of Saddam Hussein justified ?

Answer 1

no doubt

Answer 2

Certainly not. During Desert Storm in the early 1990's, George H.W. Bush was criticized, ridiculed and humiliated for not 'finishing the job' and ousting Hussein at that time. Hussein made a mockery of the-President Bush, which showed Bush to be the fool he really was. So the Bilderberg Conference, in the late 1990's decided that the Bush dynasty had to satisfy its personal vendetta against Hussein. That's why George W. Bush (an ever bigger fool that his father) and Dick Cheney were selected to be 'elected'. Hussein was hanged just to 'get even', pure and simple.
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and all 535 members of the most arrogant, incompetent, cowardly, corrupt Republican-led Congress in history [that allowed George W. Bush to run ripshod over our U.S. Constitution] deserve to be tried in an international tribunal for high crimes against humanity, and - if convicted - must hang just as they all arranged to hang Hussein.
Surely Satan has reserved a special oil-soaked, blood-stained corner of Hell for these 538 cretins where they will spend their eternity. -RKO- 06/15/07

Answer 3

He was executed for crimes committed while the United States and Iraq were still allies. Are involvement in Iraq let alone Saddam's trial does not reflect well on the United States. Like mentioned above it was strategically wrong.

There is enough "Eye for an Eye" going on in Iraq and enough questioning of the United States mission there.

Answer 4

No. However, that's the problem with realpolitik such as the Cold War and other concerns - nasty regimes were supported because they opposed specific enemies and rivals, not because they were moral. It shows how realpolitik is a vicious circle. Stalin oppresses much of Europe after WW II, so the free nations oppose him. Other nations opposed to Stalin are supported, even though they are not free themselves. Many unpleasant dictators pick sides so as to get armed and stay in power, far more likely to use their arms on their own people instead of an 'ideological' enemy. And so opposing power blocks grow up based on opposing an original injustice, but cementing in place even more injustice. The Islamic regime in Iran is and was a rather unpleasant one, but arguably it has still never been quite as bad as the Shah's regime with the murderous Savak. Because it was opposed to the interests of the USA, one of its major rivals received support - Iraq, even though it was also a nasty dictatorship and their antagonism was based on competition for resources (oil, waterways) around a mutual border, not on freedom or fairness. As Iran's enemy it became the USA's friend. Perhaps an even better example of the folly of such support is that of Angola. When the Portuguese pulled out in 1975 after effectively winning the war against local independence fighters (but the dictatorship falling and the new government shedding its colonies), these guerrilla armies again made a play to seize power. One (MPLA) got backing of Cuba due to a personal relationship of the leaders, as well as a tendency towards Marxism (though it was mainly a tribal faction), and so another (UNITA) got backing of South Africa to oppose 'communism' even though that was mainly from a different tribe. Both nations sent troops to support their factions. The presence of Cuba there dragged in the Soviets for 'solidarity' against their better judgement, and in turn that made the USA reluctantly support the South Africans. The Angolan civil war raged for decades, swaying back and forth, including the largest tank battle since Kursk at Cuito Cuanavale, and significant dogfights between MiGs and Mirages. Eventually both Cuba and South Africa were hurting so much from the cost of this indecisive war that they agree to withdraw (also allowing Namibian independence), and the Cold War was drawing to a close anyway. Without their backers the war continued, and it became clear it was not about ideology or even tribalism, but just a greed for resources, and even more because of a personal antagonism between the leaders (dos Santos of MPLA and Savimbi of UNITA). Eventually the MPLA decided to hire mercenaries and buy munitions from South Africa, their former enemy, and they gained the upper hand, pushing UNITA to the fringes. Savimbi was killed in a shoot-out, and with him dead the war finally came to an end. Thus a personal feud had appeared at different times as ideological, tribal and resource-hungry, killing hundreds of thousands, and the Cold War antagonists had fuelled much of that at their own expense. Morality? Forget it!

Answer 5

Well if the man was a Dictator and was the decider of ever thing that happened in his country and made decisions for his people despite what the citizens wanted . He caused thousands of his people to die and wouldn't let Al Qeada in to his country . Then , yes he was a bad man and got what he deserved . Sound familiar ????

Answer 6

I'd say for capital punishment, it went to fast, but if look you at the way he executed Innocent civilians, then those people could have done anything to him and it would have been justified.

Why would you want to argue this anyway. It's in the past, can't be changed.

Answer 7

While Saddam was guilty of some crimes during his reign, he did not receive a fair trial and his hanging was poorly executed. He was tried by Kurds and Shiites and the trial was a show. Even the original judge left the trial because it was unfair. Also during the hanging, they allowed it to be taped and they did not let him finish his prayer while he was on the gallows. His execution was a revenge killing staged by the United States and also it was done to prove that progress was happening in Iraq while it is clearly not.

Answer 8

he was deserving more than execution because he killed thousands of my ppl, here is my life because of him: i was born during the first Gulf war and i was 34 days when the second Gulf war started, then i spent my first twelve years in an Amparo, and here we are now, every one know our situations.
what did i see in my life? fire, bad ppl, terrorists, no freedom, no peace......

Answer 9

I think we would have had a lot more credibility in the world if we waited for a full outing of all of his atrocities instead of killing him for the first few we put him to trial over.

I dont think it helped our situation over there.

Not saying the Ahole didn't deserve it... but strategically, the timing was off.

Answer 10

Yes it was for his own people tried him. I just wanna know Where's Osma Bin Ladin? And how come he is still free?

Answer 11

YES! Damn shame the bastard didn't suffer a little more during his execution.