Saddam To Be Executed
- Thread starter PDJ
- Start date
Guys, I can't see any country wanting the responsibility of housing him. One reason would quite reasonably be the perception by the Kurds and Shi'ites that it was somehow protecting, rather than punishing, him. Can you imagine the conditions of lifelong jail in, say, Sweden? Not too shabby, and he could probably claim a free iPod and 42" LCD tv under the Human Rights Act.
Can you then see the scenario where a jolly band of reprisal-minded Shi'ites enters (or is already in - having fled Saddam years ago) the country, planting bombs hither and thither, in reprisal for keeping the old bugger in the safety and humane conditions he denied to so many of them? Nah, not under starter's orders, I'm afraid, however slick an answer that looks.
There would also be the issue of setting a precedent of jailing a non-national elsewhere simply for political expediency. Wimping out, in other words. As it is, the judge and witnesses already are under threat in Iraq for their actions. It wouldn't take much for pressure to be put on the nationals of the 'host' country, from the guards to the prison governor, to almost anyone. It could involve threats, kidnapping of family members, anything in order to force Saddam out of what would be viewed as a comfortable hidey-hole by those oppressed by him. I'm sure that option was considered, if clemency had been granted. But above all, he was an Iraqi national, was tried in an Iraqi court by Iraqis for crimes against Iraqi people, and it was an Iraqi verdict. Therefore, the punishment (whatever it was) should have been, and rightly was, in Iraq.
Can you then see the scenario where a jolly band of reprisal-minded Shi'ites enters (or is already in - having fled Saddam years ago) the country, planting bombs hither and thither, in reprisal for keeping the old bugger in the safety and humane conditions he denied to so many of them? Nah, not under starter's orders, I'm afraid, however slick an answer that looks.
There would also be the issue of setting a precedent of jailing a non-national elsewhere simply for political expediency. Wimping out, in other words. As it is, the judge and witnesses already are under threat in Iraq for their actions. It wouldn't take much for pressure to be put on the nationals of the 'host' country, from the guards to the prison governor, to almost anyone. It could involve threats, kidnapping of family members, anything in order to force Saddam out of what would be viewed as a comfortable hidey-hole by those oppressed by him. I'm sure that option was considered, if clemency had been granted. But above all, he was an Iraqi national, was tried in an Iraqi court by Iraqis for crimes against Iraqi people, and it was an Iraqi verdict. Therefore, the punishment (whatever it was) should have been, and rightly was, in Iraq.
Euronymous
Senior Jockey
America started the thing. Wanting shouldn`t have come into it.
If we follow your rather strained logic, Euro, he'd have to spend six months of each year in the USA and the other six months in the UK.
The Ba'athist Party 'started' this train of events by murdering the Iraqi royal family, and following that up very quickly by despatching all dissidents. Since when, there's been Halabja and god knows how many still-to-be revealed horrors. As the guiding light of the party, Saddam bears all responsibility for their internal and external (Iran, Kuwait) actions. Like many genocidal megalomaniacs, retribution has caught up with him and his ilk.
But to assuage your sensitivity over his unfortunate demise, I suppose you'd prefer that he'd remained in power, to continue doing whatever he wanted to whoever opposed him, not to mention his odious sons (Uday having got off entirely scot-free after shooting a guy at a party... nice... ), his sycophantic lieutenants, and his own, very special executioners?
The Ba'athist Party 'started' this train of events by murdering the Iraqi royal family, and following that up very quickly by despatching all dissidents. Since when, there's been Halabja and god knows how many still-to-be revealed horrors. As the guiding light of the party, Saddam bears all responsibility for their internal and external (Iran, Kuwait) actions. Like many genocidal megalomaniacs, retribution has caught up with him and his ilk.
But to assuage your sensitivity over his unfortunate demise, I suppose you'd prefer that he'd remained in power, to continue doing whatever he wanted to whoever opposed him, not to mention his odious sons (Uday having got off entirely scot-free after shooting a guy at a party... nice... ), his sycophantic lieutenants, and his own, very special executioners?
Euronymous
Senior Jockey
That`s all bollocks. Are you pissed?
I`m against capital punishment, without exceptions.
I don't know why I even bother with you. You've become very rude of late, lots of swearing and personal nastiness. If I think you can become logical or even informed about this subject, I might respond, but for now - happy New Year. Christ knows you seem to need one.
Euronymous
Senior Jockey
Just of late?
If someone posts something that is plainly wrong i tell `em, and i`m what you might call a blunt northerner so swearing may just come into it.
You insinuated that my stance against capital punishment meant i somehow may have preferred Saddam to have remained in power. That is bollocks.
If someone posts something that is plainly wrong i tell `em, and i`m what you might call a blunt northerner so swearing may just come into it.
You insinuated that my stance against capital punishment meant i somehow may have preferred Saddam to have remained in power. That is bollocks.
It could easily have done Kriz, and its not without precedent. If we go back you can point to Napoleon, more recently Rudolf Hess. The United States should have housed him, unless you're asking us to believe their jails are so insecure that a few enthusiastic freelancers could spring him, spirit him away, and return him to power, without being noticed. As for the host being put in the firing line for giving him a degree of perceived sanctuary? That just doesn't stack up, when that country is pretty well already in it, right up to their neck and above, in this case.
Personally, I wouldn't have rushed to avenge a blood lust, as such decisions often result in poor judgements, especially if you allow personal emotion into play. Indeed, I've longed held a view its one of the reasons we're embroilled in Iraq in the first place.
So he harboured terrorists and funded them? ... er No
So he had weapons of mass destruction that were 45 mins away?.... er No
So he murdered 400.000 of his own people?... er No
But he was a brutal dictator? Yes, but the worlds not short of them, why have you singled this one out?
But he did try and kill my Dad and my Wife?..... er Yes <_<
I'd have explored the possibility of using him as someone who could reach many of the elements that America is finding so hard to deal with. It's interesting that the Americans now conceed that dismantling the Army and the Police was a mistake :brows: There was a reason Saddam had developed the structures he had, and now they've dispensed with the one person with whom they might have been able to deal. "Your life in return for a bit of co-operation"?
Ironically some of his last words are supposed to have been something to the effect of calling on Iraqi's to unite with each other. And then fight the Persians. Sounds like Bush could have written it for him. He clearly undestands the hegenomy of Iraq better than anyone, and the American planners have made an almighty horlicks of the whole thing with their wildly inaccurate assumptions, and believe that imposing western solutions and ideals into an alien culture would fuse seamlessly. I expect any partition to go the same way.
Ultimately on this globe, there are certain countries which are in a state of perpetual civil war. There are others which would be, if they weren't held together by an iron fist with all its brutal characteristics. Now you could argue that such countries are dysfunctional and need breaking up? I wouldn't disagree, and lets not forget modern day Iraq is another Post 1918 artifical creation anyway (when Kuwait was annexed after having been a former province incidentally) his territorial claims weren't necessarily imaginary, and having broke his economy as a result of fighting a war against islamic extremism (I underline the word against) at America's bequest, it was hardly surprising he sought a quick fix after realising that he'd be duped into a proxy conflict with little to no recompense.
The sensible thing to have done would be to step back a bit and think it through tactically looking at the 'long game' with an eye on a solution. The insurgency is a multi headed hydra. Cut off one and another one grows. In the meantime, for such time as you had one of the more influential heads under your control, he's more use to you alive than dead. He had of course be largely supplanted in other areas of the insurgency, many of whom aren't Saddamists anyway, but Nationalists, Islamists or so called foreign fighters. Saddams execution to these is of no consequence, and nothing is gained materially or tactically.
I'd have explored the level to which he was prepare to trade co-operation and influence for his life. If it didn't work, you could always execute him later. I wouldn't have gone so far as to return him to power, serve him with an ASBO and tag him etc But all we're slowly doing at the moment is realising what Saddam knew, and finding out the hard way, that the country is close to ungovernable, unless....... Perverse as it sounds, my gut instinct is that he could have had a positive role to play under these circumstances, and if not, then he's still in an American jail
We were told they'd welcome us in? er No
We were told Saddam was controlling the resistance? he might have inputed in early days when it was small, but he's been in custody for nearly a year, and the last 2 months have been the heaviest in terms of attacks and coalition casualties, so er.... No again
Bush declared victory and an end to hostilities. I even saw him fly out to an Aircraft carrier to do it...... er No
We were told that all they needed was free democratic elections and then things would die down? ...... er No
Curiously (and the penny might be dropping) they now describe the execution as a landmark, and that it won't end the violence. Well yes. A landmark in missed unexplored possibilities, and the violence will continue, especially as there's going to be a bit of vacuum to be filled, and a plethora of individuals broadly aligned to one side (and a forlorn hope that won't come to pass now) who will go and join another.
Personally, I wouldn't have rushed to avenge a blood lust, as such decisions often result in poor judgements, especially if you allow personal emotion into play. Indeed, I've longed held a view its one of the reasons we're embroilled in Iraq in the first place.
So he harboured terrorists and funded them? ... er No
So he had weapons of mass destruction that were 45 mins away?.... er No
So he murdered 400.000 of his own people?... er No
But he was a brutal dictator? Yes, but the worlds not short of them, why have you singled this one out?
But he did try and kill my Dad and my Wife?..... er Yes <_<
I'd have explored the possibility of using him as someone who could reach many of the elements that America is finding so hard to deal with. It's interesting that the Americans now conceed that dismantling the Army and the Police was a mistake :brows: There was a reason Saddam had developed the structures he had, and now they've dispensed with the one person with whom they might have been able to deal. "Your life in return for a bit of co-operation"?
Ironically some of his last words are supposed to have been something to the effect of calling on Iraqi's to unite with each other. And then fight the Persians. Sounds like Bush could have written it for him. He clearly undestands the hegenomy of Iraq better than anyone, and the American planners have made an almighty horlicks of the whole thing with their wildly inaccurate assumptions, and believe that imposing western solutions and ideals into an alien culture would fuse seamlessly. I expect any partition to go the same way.
Ultimately on this globe, there are certain countries which are in a state of perpetual civil war. There are others which would be, if they weren't held together by an iron fist with all its brutal characteristics. Now you could argue that such countries are dysfunctional and need breaking up? I wouldn't disagree, and lets not forget modern day Iraq is another Post 1918 artifical creation anyway (when Kuwait was annexed after having been a former province incidentally) his territorial claims weren't necessarily imaginary, and having broke his economy as a result of fighting a war against islamic extremism (I underline the word against) at America's bequest, it was hardly surprising he sought a quick fix after realising that he'd be duped into a proxy conflict with little to no recompense.
The sensible thing to have done would be to step back a bit and think it through tactically looking at the 'long game' with an eye on a solution. The insurgency is a multi headed hydra. Cut off one and another one grows. In the meantime, for such time as you had one of the more influential heads under your control, he's more use to you alive than dead. He had of course be largely supplanted in other areas of the insurgency, many of whom aren't Saddamists anyway, but Nationalists, Islamists or so called foreign fighters. Saddams execution to these is of no consequence, and nothing is gained materially or tactically.
I'd have explored the level to which he was prepare to trade co-operation and influence for his life. If it didn't work, you could always execute him later. I wouldn't have gone so far as to return him to power, serve him with an ASBO and tag him etc But all we're slowly doing at the moment is realising what Saddam knew, and finding out the hard way, that the country is close to ungovernable, unless....... Perverse as it sounds, my gut instinct is that he could have had a positive role to play under these circumstances, and if not, then he's still in an American jail
We were told they'd welcome us in? er No
We were told Saddam was controlling the resistance? he might have inputed in early days when it was small, but he's been in custody for nearly a year, and the last 2 months have been the heaviest in terms of attacks and coalition casualties, so er.... No again
Bush declared victory and an end to hostilities. I even saw him fly out to an Aircraft carrier to do it...... er No
We were told that all they needed was free democratic elections and then things would die down? ...... er No
Curiously (and the penny might be dropping) they now describe the execution as a landmark, and that it won't end the violence. Well yes. A landmark in missed unexplored possibilities, and the violence will continue, especially as there's going to be a bit of vacuum to be filled, and a plethora of individuals broadly aligned to one side (and a forlorn hope that won't come to pass now) who will go and join another.
A
Ardross
Guest
St.Helena would have been an idea - Napoleon couldn't get away from the place
Colin Phillips
At the Start
Situations sometime throw up strange bed-fellows...........the Catholic Church, Ardross and myself all finding Sadam's execution wrong!!
My arguement against capital punishment has always been the worry about certainty of guilt. I don't think there is much doubt, in this case, that Saddam has blood on his hands but on that basis perhaps there are one or two?? politicians, past and present, who should have faced or be facing the hangman's noose.
Does the execution "bring closure"?...............I would think it does for the Shi'ite and Kurds in Iraq but does anyone think it will bring an end to the total chaos that Iraq is in at the moment.
My arguement against capital punishment has always been the worry about certainty of guilt. I don't think there is much doubt, in this case, that Saddam has blood on his hands but on that basis perhaps there are one or two?? politicians, past and present, who should have faced or be facing the hangman's noose.
Does the execution "bring closure"?...............I would think it does for the Shi'ite and Kurds in Iraq but does anyone think it will bring an end to the total chaos that Iraq is in at the moment.
This isn't to do with - I will say it just once more - OUR personal preferences about capital punishment. There are plenty of Iraqis, especially among the intelligentsia (if you will), who don't agree with it, either, and that hasn't stopped an Iraqi court sentencing its former leader to death.
Warbler, I take your point, but you do miss out on something. The USA seems to already have had enough of the turmoil in Iraq and I imagine pretty soon, with another British soldier killed today, most of Britain (with a passionately anti-involvement stance, you'll remember) will be supporting our troops' earliest withdrawal. Of course the whole business is shot through with missed opportunities, but it is not the US's legal right to trade favours with a criminal. What kind of message would that send? First of all, they have no sovereignty over the legal system in Iraq. It is not up to a foreign power to trade over the heads of the people they claim they're trying to set free of their despot - it's up to the people themselves, and in this case they have spoken.
That a deposed leader should be sentenced to jail in a foreign country doesn't appear to me to make any legal sense, either - Ardross would probably know best about that. Idi Amin wasn't 'sentenced' to live in Saudi Arabia. He and his family were offered a place and he took it. After losing over two thousand of their young men in Iraq so far, do you really think that the Americans would for a moment countenance having what they'd see as the cause of their deaths on their doorstep? People want to win elections in the US - welcoming the reason for their desperate military presence in Iraq would hardly be a vote-spinner.
Lastly (wheeze, gasp), if you think that Saddam would have had the SLIGHTEST influence over the Shia and Kurdish elements, you've got a bigger wish list than Santa Claus. He didn't even have the support of all of the Sunnis - you can't assume that the brighter elements among them were all gung-ho about the regular cullings, since many of their own number were included in his 'disappeared'. People would ask why thousands of Iraqis were currently fleeing, displaced, dreadfully maimed by the opposition's bombs, grieving for dead families, while you placed the base cause for all of this sorrow into a position of a clean, comfortable, well-fed ADVISOR? :blink:
And after cutting this jolly little deal, what would you do when (not if, as the man was as wily as a fox) Saddam downed tools in a year's time and told you to stuff the propaganda? Kill him off then, or torture him into submission? You are already suggesting putting yourself into the position of a blackmailer by the offer of trading his life for your agenda, which I find dishonourable in itself. His last-ditch peace campaign (please, the irony!) came far too late, and he knew full well it would be ignored, but appeal to those dead-tired of the blood and gore. I see the Sunnis have taken it to heart this morning, and bombed the hell out of a number of Shia neighbourhoods, with the usual dreadful loss of life and limb.
------------------------------
Euro, my Mother was Manchester-born and bred, as was her own Mother and family, so don't give me that 'ee, bah gum, I'm from oop nawth and we all talk bloontly' nonsense. If you can't discuss an issue without accusing posters of being drunk, it's nothing to do with your demography, but your mindset.
Warbler, I take your point, but you do miss out on something. The USA seems to already have had enough of the turmoil in Iraq and I imagine pretty soon, with another British soldier killed today, most of Britain (with a passionately anti-involvement stance, you'll remember) will be supporting our troops' earliest withdrawal. Of course the whole business is shot through with missed opportunities, but it is not the US's legal right to trade favours with a criminal. What kind of message would that send? First of all, they have no sovereignty over the legal system in Iraq. It is not up to a foreign power to trade over the heads of the people they claim they're trying to set free of their despot - it's up to the people themselves, and in this case they have spoken.
That a deposed leader should be sentenced to jail in a foreign country doesn't appear to me to make any legal sense, either - Ardross would probably know best about that. Idi Amin wasn't 'sentenced' to live in Saudi Arabia. He and his family were offered a place and he took it. After losing over two thousand of their young men in Iraq so far, do you really think that the Americans would for a moment countenance having what they'd see as the cause of their deaths on their doorstep? People want to win elections in the US - welcoming the reason for their desperate military presence in Iraq would hardly be a vote-spinner.
Lastly (wheeze, gasp), if you think that Saddam would have had the SLIGHTEST influence over the Shia and Kurdish elements, you've got a bigger wish list than Santa Claus. He didn't even have the support of all of the Sunnis - you can't assume that the brighter elements among them were all gung-ho about the regular cullings, since many of their own number were included in his 'disappeared'. People would ask why thousands of Iraqis were currently fleeing, displaced, dreadfully maimed by the opposition's bombs, grieving for dead families, while you placed the base cause for all of this sorrow into a position of a clean, comfortable, well-fed ADVISOR? :blink:
And after cutting this jolly little deal, what would you do when (not if, as the man was as wily as a fox) Saddam downed tools in a year's time and told you to stuff the propaganda? Kill him off then, or torture him into submission? You are already suggesting putting yourself into the position of a blackmailer by the offer of trading his life for your agenda, which I find dishonourable in itself. His last-ditch peace campaign (please, the irony!) came far too late, and he knew full well it would be ignored, but appeal to those dead-tired of the blood and gore. I see the Sunnis have taken it to heart this morning, and bombed the hell out of a number of Shia neighbourhoods, with the usual dreadful loss of life and limb.
------------------------------
Euro, my Mother was Manchester-born and bred, as was her own Mother and family, so don't give me that 'ee, bah gum, I'm from oop nawth and we all talk bloontly' nonsense. If you can't discuss an issue without accusing posters of being drunk, it's nothing to do with your demography, but your mindset.
Lee Chater
At the Start
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2005
- Messages
- 366
Quote Euro; If someone posts something that is plainly wrong i tell `em, and i`m what you might call a blunt northerner so swearing may just come into it.
No wonder those down sarf think we up here are straight out of the long grass :angry:
No wonder those down sarf think we up here are straight out of the long grass :angry:
Euronymous
Senior Jockey
Somewhat ironically i was half pissed myself at the time (Bowmore single malt, unreal afterburn)
You didn't try lighting anything, did you?
Euronymous
Senior Jockey
No. When i`m posting on here late at night i`ll usually be naked.
http://eyeraki.blogspot.com/2006/12/saddam...tion-video.html
If you think you can stomach the actual footage of Saddam's execution you can watch it on this link. Ive not watched it.
If you think you can stomach the actual footage of Saddam's execution you can watch it on this link. Ive not watched it.
Colin Phillips
At the Start
Do we want that link on here?
It comes with a warning, I don't see anything wrong with it. If you don't want to view it, don't. Admittedly you could start one of those; "what if arguments" but Hussein can probably be excepted given that he is a historically important figure in our contemporary world. Now if someone were posting links to Islamist sites featuring Ken Bigley et al I'd agree with you that its primary purpose would be purely sadistic, and questionable The BBC showed dead American GI's hanging from bridges lets not forget, death my hanging isn't quite as gruesome as throat cutting afterall.