NationStates Jolt Archive

Post your comments here

umm...how bout we NOT?

umm...how bout we NOT?
He doesn't deserve to live, he killed 1.5-2 million. He is lucky to have such merciful deaths versus just torturing the SOB.

umm...how bout we NOT?
He doesn't deserve to live, he killed 1.5-2 million. He is lucky to have such merciful deaths versus just torturing the SOB.

yes, but why can't we wait a little while longer? Let the Iraqis kill him. He really deserves death, but it'll be a great loss to our efforts and intelligence if he dies now!

umm...how bout we NOT?
He doesn't deserve to live, he killed 1.5-2 million. He is lucky to have such merciful deaths versus just torturing the SOB.

yes, but why can't we wait a little while longer? Let the Iraqis kill him. He really deserves death, but it'll be a great loss to our efforts and intelligence if he dies now!

I'm sorry about the wording, in the end it will be up to the Iraqis as it should be.

we torture him to death with kicking ducks?

Yeah, and Bush has thousands of deaths under his belt too.

Yeah, and Bush has thousands of deaths under his belt too.

Bush didn't commit genocide, Saddam did.

Yeah, and Bush has thousands of deaths under his belt too.
actually it was our proud soldiers. Shall we execute them as well?

Yeah, and Bush has thousands of deaths under his belt too.

Bush didn't commit genocide, Saddam did.

And we supported his genocide until the Gulf War... saying he was the lesser of two evils.

Yeah, and Bush has thousands of deaths under his belt too.

Bush didn't commit genocide, Saddam did.

And we supported his genocide until the Gulf War... saying he was the lesser of two evils.

Don't you mean Bush Sr.? Wait; he didn't commit genocide either.

How about some sort of trial first.

Or would that possibly prove a little too embarrasing for some?

How about some sort of trial first.

Or would that possibly prove a little too embarrasing for some?

Well I'm assuiming that he is guilty

No, the US govt supported Saddam during the Iraq-Iran War.


use power tools and drill holes in him
hangem'
have him play QB for the Detroit Lions (he will die behind the Offensive line
have him dropped off on a Shiite mosque
draw and quarter

Cruel and unusual punishment, eh? Sounds like something... Saddam would do. :lol:

No, the US govt supported Saddam during the Iraq-Iran War.


use power tools and drill holes in him
hangem'
have him play QB for the Detroit Lions (he will die behind the Offensive line
have him dropped off on a Shiite mosque
draw and quarter

Cruel and unusual punishment, eh? Sounds like something... Saddam would do. :lol:
Well maybe he should learn what he made people go through, I think the Lions one would be the quickest death as they open against the Bears. Urlacher would kill him in 2 seconds. That would be merciful

Yeah, and Bush has thousands of deaths under his belt too.

Bush didn't commit genocide, Saddam did.

WRONG

Saddam not only never committed genocide, he never even tried. Please get your facts straight.

To me, lifelong solitary confinement seems worse than death. While death would be an escape, solitary confinement would be a life of utter boredom.

That, and he -does- deserve a fair trial before an Iraqi or world court, at the very least.

Yeah, and Bush has thousands of deaths under his belt too.

Bush didn't commit genocide, Saddam did.

WRONG

Saddam not only never committed genocide, he never even tried. Please get your facts straight.

WTF, have you heard of the Kurds or Shiites in the Basrah region? Please tell me you are joking.

Maybe we could tickle him to death?

Yeah, and Bush has thousands of deaths under his belt too.
actually it was our proud soldiers. Shall we execute them as well?

Que profundo!!!!!!

beat him to death with his geroge bush as the stick? :D

http://www.isg-iags.org/definitions/def_convention.html

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such:


(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Edit : Seeing as how this is only one definition of genocide, and there are multiple, Saddam could easily be guilty of genocide under one defition and not have commited it under another.

No, the US govt supported Saddam during the Iraq-Iran War.


use power tools and drill holes in him
hangem'
have him play QB for the Detroit Lions (he will die behind the Offensive line
have him dropped off on a Shiite mosque
draw and quarter

Cruel and unusual punishment, eh? Sounds like something... Saddam would do. :lol:
Well maybe he should learn what he made people go through, I think the Lions one would be the quickest death as they open against the Bears. Urlacher would kill him in 2 seconds. That would be merciful

how can he learn anything if you kill him before he has a chance to?

Yeah, and Bush has thousands of deaths under his belt too.

Bush didn't commit genocide, Saddam did.

WRONG

Saddam not only never committed genocide, he never even tried. Please get your facts straight.

WTF, have you heard of the Kurds or Shiites in the Basrah region? Please tell me you are joking.

http://www.hrw.org/editorials/2002/iraq_032202.htm
here a human rights watch article, they are not biased and do condemn the US for Gitmo so even liberalss like you Stephistan can see no bias.

Maybe we could tickle him to death?

Hahahaha.

That would be funny, and we'd get to see him piss (my mom would kill me if she saw me use that world) all over himself in the process!


Yeah, so, anyway, Iraq is better off without Saddam, but Bush's approach was appalling.

http://costofwar.com

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

Powerful numbers!

Maybe we could tickle him to death?

Hahahaha.

That would be funny, and we'd get to see him piss (my mom would kill me if she saw me use that world) all over himself in the process!


Yeah, so, anyway, Iraq is better off without Saddam, but Bush's approach was appalling.

http://costofwar.com

http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

Powerful numbers!

I smell bias and your numbers include attacks like the market place in March of 2003 which was proven to be Saddam trying to make the US look bad

Yeah, and Bush has thousands of deaths under his belt too.

Bush didn't commit genocide, Saddam did.

WRONG

Saddam not only never committed genocide, he never even tried. Please get your facts straight.

WTF, have you heard of the Kurds or Shiites in the Basrah region? Please tell me you are joking.

http://www.hrw.org/editorials/2002/iraq_032202.htm
here a human rights watch article, they are not biased and do condemn the US for Gitmo so even liberalss like you Stephistan can see no bias.

Yeah, I hear you, Saddam bad dude.. but to commit genocide you have to try and take out a whole people.. Saddam attacked the Kurds once with WMD, if Saddam had wanted to take out all the Kurds he could of done so with some ease. He never tried to kill them all. As for the Shia, well they rose up against him and he slapped them back down as any government would do.. and lets not forget, the Kurds were in 88, the world, Americans, France, Germany, Russia all sold him military stuff and did business with him long after that. In fact when the UN tried to condemn Saddam for the use of the WMD against Iran (the WMD the Americans gave him) the Americans VETO'd it. So, at least lets be fair about what was really done and what really happened. I'm not excusing Saddam by no means.. but he didn't commit nor try to commit genocide. Genocide is what Hitler tried to do.

Yeah, and Bush has thousands of deaths under his belt too.

Bush didn't commit genocide, Saddam did.

WRONG

Saddam not only never committed genocide, he never even tried. Please get your facts straight.

WTF, have you heard of the Kurds or Shiites in the Basrah region? Please tell me you are joking.

http://www.hrw.org/editorials/2002/iraq_032202.htm
here a human rights watch article, they are not biased and do condemn the US for Gitmo so even liberalss like you Stephistan can see no bias.

Yeah, I hear you, Saddam bad dude.. but to commit genocide you have to try and take out a whole people.. Saddam attacked the Kurds once with WMD, if Saddam had wanted to take out all the Kurds he could of done so with some ease. He never tried to kill them all. As for the Shia, well they rose up against him and he slapped them back down as any government would do.. and lets not forget, the Kurds were in 88, the world, Americans, France, Germany, Russia all sold him military stuff and did business with him long after that. In fact when the UN tried to condemn Saddam for the use of the WMD against Iran (the WMD the Americans gave him) the Americans VETO'd it. So, at least lets be fair about what was really done and what really happened. I'm not excusing Saddam by no means.. but he didn't commit nor try to commit genocide. Genocide is what Hitler tried to do.

I want you to read my documentation, Saddam tried to kill all the Kurds, but we stopped him after Gulf War 1 with the No Fly Zone, we patrolled the area by air and made sure Iraqi forces were kept at bay. By your definition, Hitler never commited Genocide since he didn't kill them all when he had the ability to (I say this since some lived the Concentration camps when he could've just as easily killed them) I'm not defending Hitler, I hate him since I am Jewish. I am just pointing out the logic flaw.

We could vacuum-seal him inside a metal box with a thirty minute air supply, push the box over the side of a Navy ship, and let him sink to the bottom of the Persian Gulf. ~ Michael.

I don't want to rain on your parade or anything, but do you remember such quaint old ideas as "due process", "innocent until proven guilty" and the concept of "sub judice"?

I agree. Lets not hang anyone until they get their day in court.

Let the Iraqis kill the mother f*cker

I agree. Lets not hang anyone until they get their day in court.

Good man yourself: I thought one of the supposed reasons for going in to Iraq with armed forces was to stop this whole execution without proper trial malarky. Of course, I could have been sadly mistaken...

Yeah, and Bush has thousands of deaths under his belt too.

Bush didn't commit genocide, Saddam did.

WRONG

Saddam not only never committed genocide, he never even tried. Please get your facts straight.

WTF, have you heard of the Kurds or Shiites in the Basrah region? Please tell me you are joking.

http://www.hrw.org/editorials/2002/iraq_032202.htm
here a human rights watch article, they are not biased and do condemn the US for Gitmo so even liberalss like you Stephistan can see no bias.

Yeah, I hear you, Saddam bad dude.. but to commit genocide you have to try and take out a whole people.. Saddam attacked the Kurds once with WMD, if Saddam had wanted to take out all the Kurds he could of done so with some ease. He never tried to kill them all. As for the Shia, well they rose up against him and he slapped them back down as any government would do.. and lets not forget, the Kurds were in 88, the world, Americans, France, Germany, Russia all sold him military stuff and did business with him long after that. In fact when the UN tried to condemn Saddam for the use of the WMD against Iran (the WMD the Americans gave him) the Americans VETO'd it. So, at least lets be fair about what was really done and what really happened. I'm not excusing Saddam by no means.. but he didn't commit nor try to commit genocide. Genocide is what Hitler tried to do.

I want you to read my documentation, Saddam tried to kill all the Kurds, but we stopped him after Gulf War 1 with the No Fly Zone, we patrolled the area by air and made sure Iraqi forces were kept at bay. By your definition, Hitler never commited Genocide since he didn't kill them all when he had the ability to (I say this since some lived the Concentration camps when he could've just as easily killed them) I'm not defending Hitler, I hate him since I am Jewish. I am just pointing out the logic flaw.

Saddam never had a policy of genocide against the Kurds.. look at the dates.. he gassed the Kurds in 1988.. a few years before the Gulf war.. now, he did go after them again after the Gulf war.. but if his intention was genocide, he would of finished the job in 1988 when he had western support. Where as if Hilter had not been stopped yes, he would of finished his final evil plan.. Saddam only cared about power and no one messing with it, Saddam had no intention of committing genocide. I assure you. All evidence would suggest if that was his intention, he would of finished it in 1988.. had Hitler been given the same chance as Saddam, he would of killed every Jewish person in Germany and occupied territory. I am one of those people who believe actions speak louder then words. The fact that he could of and didn't.. speaks volumes.

I guess the poll is assuming that Saddam has been convicted of his crimes, BWO.

As for the punishment, maybe a sex-change for him and then being raped by all his former special security and republican guards personnel is brutal enough. I can only think of one more brutal than that, forcing him to watch teletubbies episodes 24/7 for about two months.

I guess the poll is assuming that Saddam has been convicted of his crimes, BWO.


Seeing as only one of the options would be allowed by American law, I don't really think jurisprudence is a subject too close to the original poster's heart: thus I state my reservations.

Edit: having noticed that you advocate rape as punishment, I am henceforth treating you with the disdain you deserve.

THROW BROWN STUFF AT HIM

Yeah, and Bush has thousands of deaths under his belt too.

Bush didn't commit genocide, Saddam did.

WRONG

Saddam not only never committed genocide, he never even tried. Please get your facts straight.

WTF, have you heard of the Kurds or Shiites in the Basrah region? Please tell me you are joking.

http://www.hrw.org/editorials/2002/iraq_032202.htm
here a human rights watch article, they are not biased and do condemn the US for Gitmo so even liberalss like you Stephistan can see no bias.

Yeah, I hear you, Saddam bad dude.. but to commit genocide you have to try and take out a whole people.. Saddam attacked the Kurds once with WMD, if Saddam had wanted to take out all the Kurds he could of done so with some ease. He never tried to kill them all. As for the Shia, well they rose up against him and he slapped them back down as any government would do.. and lets not forget, the Kurds were in 88, the world, Americans, France, Germany, Russia all sold him military stuff and did business with him long after that. In fact when the UN tried to condemn Saddam for the use of the WMD against Iran (the WMD the Americans gave him) the Americans VETO'd it. So, at least lets be fair about what was really done and what really happened. I'm not excusing Saddam by no means.. but he didn't commit nor try to commit genocide. Genocide is what Hitler tried to do.

I want you to read my documentation, Saddam tried to kill all the Kurds, but we stopped him after Gulf War 1 with the No Fly Zone, we patrolled the area by air and made sure Iraqi forces were kept at bay. By your definition, Hitler never commited Genocide since he didn't kill them all when he had the ability to (I say this since some lived the Concentration camps when he could've just as easily killed them) I'm not defending Hitler, I hate him since I am Jewish. I am just pointing out the logic flaw.

Saddam never had a policy of genocide against the Kurds.. look at the dates.. he gassed the Kurds in 1988.. a few years before the Gulf war.. now, he did go after them again after the Gulf war.. but if his intention was genocide, he would of finished the job in 1988 when he had western support. Where as if Hilter had not been stopped yes, he would of finished his final evil plan.. Saddam only cared about power and no one messing with it, Saddam had no intention of committing genocide. I assure you. All evidence would suggest if that was his intention, he would of finished it in 1988.. had Hitler been given the same chance as Saddam, he would of killed every Jewish person in Germany and occupied territory. I am one of those people who believe actions speak louder then words. The fact that he could of and didn't.. speaks volumes.

Your main logic flaw is that Hitler killed Jews in 1939, by 1945 he hadn't even killed all in Germany. He had the ability but didn't do it. Your own logic says that Hitler never commited genocide. Saddam did, genocide doesn't mean wiping the race out, it means killing people because of their race. Read the definition posted above please.

Isn't the lack of due process and cruel and unusual punishment one of the things that we went after Saddam for?

Stephistan, you are usually one to support the definitions of international conventions for things (if I am mistaken, please tell me). The official defination (abridged) was posted earlier in this thread. According to the (unabridged) official version, Saddam's actions fall under the definition of genocide. (And before anyone leaps at the chance...no, the Americans actions in the war do not fall under the definition)

a) Shut him in a room, give him all Rumsfeld's speeches and ask him to translate them into English - his head would explode!
or

b) Give him to Sharon ...

My question is this:

By whos authority are we arresting, and forcing Saddam to stand trial?
What exactly are the charges against him?

How do you try someone who is a leader of a soveriegn nation?

There is no "world court"..or "unilateral set of rules everyone must follow or else"....

So....other than being a sandy little butthole......what EXACTLY are his crimes....and by whos authority are we going to make him stand trial?

My question is this:

By whos authority are we arresting, and forcing Saddam to stand trial?
What exactly are the charges against him?

How do you try someone who is a leader of a soveriegn nation?

There is no "world court"..or "unilateral set of rules everyone must follow or else"....

So....other than being a sandy little butthole......what EXACTLY are his crimes....and by whos authority are we going to make him stand trial?

Good question, especially as the US refuses to sign up to any of the international courts. I s'pose they'll just say, he we've got the biggest guns, so we've got the right to try him ...iand that's mperialist aggression at its most blatant.

Really gets me thinking....

I mean..this isnt what this country is supposed to do.....

(where'd the delete post button go....?)

Y'know, there is a country in the Middle East whose leader makes threats against others, and who has unacknowledged nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction ... I won't name it becos I'll only get flamed, but its name begins with I ... :o :shock:

Y'know, there is a country in the Middle East whose leader makes threats against others, and who has unacknowledged nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction ... I won't name it becos I'll only get flamed, but its name begins with I ... :o :shock:


its them damn iranians isn't it

Y'know, there is a country in the Middle East whose leader makes threats against others, and who has unacknowledged nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction ... I won't name it becos I'll only get flamed, but its name begins with I ... :o :shock:
There's also a country in North America whose leaders make threats agaisnt others and have acknowledged nuclear weapons of mass destruction. Their name starts with a "U" and ends with a "nited States of America".

Y'know, there is a country in the Middle East whose leader makes threats against others, and who has unacknowledged nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction ... I won't name it becos I'll only get flamed, but its name begins with I ... :o :shock:

India?

My question is this:

By whos authority are we arresting, and forcing Saddam to stand trial?
What exactly are the charges against him?

How do you try someone who is a leader of a soveriegn nation?

There is no "world court"..or "unilateral set of rules everyone must follow or else"....

So....other than being a sandy little butthole......what EXACTLY are his crimes....and by whos authority are we going to make him stand trial?

Good question, especially as the US refuses to sign up to any of the international courts. I s'pose they'll just say, he we've got the biggest guns, so we've got the right to try him ...iand that's mperialist aggression at its most blatant.

Read the news. He's going to be tried by the Iraqi government, whenever that appears.

My question is this:

By whos authority are we arresting, and forcing Saddam to stand trial?
What exactly are the charges against him?

How do you try someone who is a leader of a soveriegn nation?

There is no "world court"..or "unilateral set of rules everyone must follow or else"....

So....other than being a sandy little butthole......what EXACTLY are his crimes....and by whos authority are we going to make him stand trial?

Good question, especially as the US refuses to sign up to any of the international courts. I s'pose they'll just say, he we've got the biggest guns, so we've got the right to try him ...iand that's mperialist aggression at its most blatant.

Read the news. He's going to be tried by the Iraqi government, whenever that appears.

Wich could take years to form right?

I smell a rat.....

Isn't the lack of due process and cruel and unusual punishment one of the things that we went after Saddam for?

Yes, he'll get his trial

I heard on the news that the trial, over a few years, will cost 75 million.

Read the news. He's going to be tried by the Iraqi government, whenever that appears.

or as the average iraqi on the street calls them, "the traitorous dog whores of the yankee imperialist butchers"

So...what are the charges going to be....and by whose authority?

Y'know, there is a country in the Middle East whose leader makes threats against others, and who has unacknowledged nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction ... I won't name it becos I'll only get flamed, but its name begins with I ... :o :shock:

India?

MIDDLE East! But ... :lol:

Well even though an unusual punishment would be nice some pople have a point. We went in there becuase of his evil forms of punishment so if we were to do the same we would be no better than he but see what is the definition of unusual punishment? If im not mistaken that would vary in parts of the world would it not? :?