Saddam Husseins Hanging. Your Opinion?

[TheBigDog]

Please don't enlarge this view file if you don't want to see what execution looks like:

That bastard said he was going to be smiling. Now I know. Thanks.

 

Bill

[TheFaithfulStone]

UNCOOL.

 

That should be a blind link - everyone can see the thumbnail. Which I would rather not do.

 

TFS

[hallenrm]

Much has been said about SH, the perceptions vary, dependinding on the nature of media one subscribes to. Being a scientists I would like to analyze a larger segment of information then is fed to me by my local newspaper or TV.

 

I happen to trust wikipedia, so here's a segment from the article on Saddam Hussein in Wikipedia:

Saddam consolidated power in a nation riddled with profound tensions. Long before Saddam, Iraq had been split along social, ethnic, religious, and economic fault lines: Sunni versus Shi'ite, Arab versus Kurd, tribal chief versus urban merchant, nomad versus peasant. To stabilize rule in a country rife with factionalism Saddam initiated a programme to improve living standards. Saddam moved up the ranks in the new government by aiding attempts to strengthen and unify the Ba'ath party and taking a leading role in addressing the country's major domestic problems and expanding the party's following.

 

Saddam actively fostered the modernization of the Iraqi economy along with the creation of a strong security apparatus to prevent coups within the power structure and insurrections apart from it. Ever concerned with broadening his base of support among the diverse elements of Iraqi society and mobilizing mass support, he closely followed the administration of state welfare and development programs.

 

At the center of this strategy was Iraq's oil. On June 1, 1972, Saddam oversaw the seizure of international oil interests, which, at the time, had a monopoly on the country's oil. A year later, world oil prices rose dramatically as a result of the 1973 energy crisis, and skyrocketing revenues enabled Saddam to expand his agenda.

 

Within just a few years, Iraq was providing social services that were unprecedented among Middle Eastern countries. Saddam established and controlled the "National Campaign for the Eradication of Illiteracy" and the campaign for "Compulsory Free Education in Iraq," and largely under his auspices, the government established universal free schooling up to the highest education levels; hundreds of thousands learned to read in the years following the initiation of the program. The government also supported families of soldiers, granted free hospitalization to everyone, and gave subsidies to farmers. Iraq created one of the most modernized public-health systems in the Middle East, earning Saddam an award from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).[17][18]

 

To diversify the largely oil-based economy, Saddam implemented a national infrastructure campaign that made great progress in building roads, promoting mining, and developing other industries. The campaign revolutionized Iraq's energy industries. Electricity was brought to nearly every city in Iraq, and many outlying areas.

 

Before the 1970s, most of Iraq's people lived in the countryside, where Saddam himself was born and raised, and roughly two-thirds were peasants. But this number would decrease quickly during the 1970s as the country invested much of its oil profits into industrial expansion

 

And here's another from another source:

Saddam Hussein

 

Saddam Hussein's political platform was a combination of moderate social democracy approximating the European model, combined with a struggle to keep the various ethnic and religious groups in the country together.

In the West, the image of Saddam Hussein went through a dramatic change, from being one of Europe's and USA's favourites into becoming the most negatively presented dictator in the world. The change in this image was not related to any change in his political platform, nor to a greater suppression of his opposition, but to one act alone: The invasion and occupation of Kuwait.

Saddam Hussein brought to his homeland a system of economic security for all inhabitants of Iraq; relative freedom in the economic sector; a vital cultural life in the fields of theater, arts and music; freedom for women; free education; internal stability in most parts of the country; and a high level of private security.

The cost of maintainng this system was, however, excessive, especially because tens of thousands were killed, the Sunni majority enjoyed benefits and positions in a society in which Shi'is had only a restricted status. Yet, he was tactful to show respect for Shi'i shrines and allow for their improvement.

[Buffy]

Being a scientists I would like to analyze a larger segment of information then is fed to me by my local newspaper or TV....I happen to trust wikipedia....

My, wiki says the man was a SAINT! All that stuff about him murdering his foes in cold blood and gassing whole Kurdish towns and starting a bloody war with Iran because he thought he could take advantage of the turmoil there to build a "Greater Iraq" and gain more oil fields and do the same with Kuwait, why, they're all just LIES! Saddam was a kind and wise leader and all Iraqis benefited from his benevolent and caring leadership! Sure, one or two people may have been hurt in the process, but you can't make omlettes without breaking eggs!

 

All hail the great martyr and reincarnation of Saladin!

 

By the way, my daughter's teacher does not *allow* her students to use Wiki because it has so many such, uh, jaundiced entries....

 

The Holocaust is just a theory too,

Buffy

[TheFaithfulStone]

I happen to trust wikipedia,

 

Bad policy. Except in matters involving Thundercats, Airwolf, and possibly the Transformers.

 

TFS

[InfiniteNow]

Perhaps users will find greater confidence in the information here:

 

BBC News | Saddam's Iraq: Key events

 

 

However, this thread was initiated on the question of his execution. I think you'll be hard pressed to find a member supporting many of his actions. This was a question of whether or not he should be killed, not in support of his atrocities.

[hallenrm]

this thread was initiated on the question of his execution. I think you'll be hard pressed to find a member supporting many of his actions. This was a question of whether or not he should be killed, not in support of his atrocities.

 

Still how can one answer that question objectively, without knowing the truth, one tends to support or oppose an opinion only after one is well acquainted with the facts of the case, and its antecedents.

[hallenrm]

My, wiki says the man was a SAINT! All that stuff about him murdering his foes in cold blood and gassing whole Kurdish towns and starting a bloody war with Iran because he thought he could take advantage of the turmoil there to build a "Greater Iraq" and gain more oil fields and do the same with Kuwait, why, they're all just LIES! Saddam was a kind and wise leader and all Iraqis benefited from his benevolent and caring leadership! Sure, one or two people may have been hurt in the process, but you can't make omlettes without breaking eggs!

 

All hail the great martyr and reincarnation of Saladin!

 

That's as much true as the belief that US and Britain are the greatest friends of the humanity and always just :hi hi:

[Buffy]

That's as much true as the belief that US and Britain are the greatest friends of the humanity and always just :shrug:

You're absolutely right. Saddam was at least as good as Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln combined. No question. We'd *all* be better off if the US had been isolationist throughout the 20th century, and you folks in India would be much richer if the UK had brutally repressed Gandhi and kept the Raj (well, actually probably ceded it to Hitler given US isolationism), just like Saddam did with the Shi'a and Kurds ...

 

I'll betcha that's what Wiki has to say on the subject!

 

I'm sorry, but this massive apologia on Saddam that is being promulgated by those who are seeking to show evil in the death penalty or prop him up as a martyr who stood up for the victims of the Imperialist West is quite sickening. Its really not too far from Holocaust denial. If you're looking for "facts" on Saddam, beware of the attitude that "no one could be that evil; it must be lies." The guy was a true sociopath with the power to kill, maim and torture hundreds of thousands and he did so *eagerly*...

 

Whoever is biggest is evil,

Buffy

[Racoon]

[quote name=Buffy;151106

 

Whoever is biggest is evil' date='

Buffy[/quote]

 

 

Will this affect you'r sleep?

The fact that they intentionally killed somebody?

[hallenrm]

I am not for supporting any brutality anywhere, least of all in the modern India a la the recent Gujrat riots. All I am contending at that before rejoicing at the hanging of a dictator, lets not forget the brutalities commited by our own leaders. There's an old saying in India,

 

Let that person throw a stone at an accussed first, who has never commited a crime oneself! :shrug:

 

People living in glass houses should not throw stones at others!

 

The actions of any individual should be best judged considering the circumstances in which the crime was commited. On that score I find that the actions of the 'dictatorial' US regimes in the recent past are at least at par with the acts of Saddam!

 

Justly

 

hallenrm

[Buffy]

On that score I find that the actions of the 'dictatorial' US regimes in the recent past are at least at par with the acts of Saddam!

Fair enough, but an implication of this statement is that you'd consider there to be no difference between Bill Clinton and Saddam. If you see these two as roughly equivalent, I'd argue that no set of "facts" would ever change your mind!

 

Its perfectly fine to examine the facts, but its important to be aware that your personal goals may affect your assessment of those facts. The main point I'm trying to make here is that if you're going to be against Saddam's execution, you have to be willing to admit that even someone as evil as Saddam should be spared that punishment. What you appear to be doing though is trying to say that Saddam should be spared simply because he's "really no worse" than anyone else, and that's ultimately a very dangerous conclusion...

 

Morally relativistic,

Buffy

[hallenrm]

The main point I'm trying to make here is that if you're going to be against Saddam's execution, you have to be willing to admit that even someone as evil as Saddam should be spared that punishment. What you appear to be doing though is trying to say that Saddam should be spared simply because he's "really no worse" than anyone else, and that's ultimately a very dangerous conclusion...

 

No! what I am pointing to, is that in an unjust world, where any culprit who has enormous power can get away with any brutality, nobody is really justified to kill anybody just in the name of justice! Let the powerful demonstrate that they are really for justice, before their acts in the name of justice can be accepted. :(

 

For example I cite the case of killings in Gujrat riots (India) when hundred of individuals belonging to the minority community were killed on the behest of the powerful chief minister, people who cannot condemn such acts have no right to rejoice on the killing of another unjust ruler.:shrug:

[IDMclean]

"no one could be that evil; it must be lies."

 

What your refering to here, Buffy, is the fallacy of Wishful Thinking. Not to be contradictory, but rather informative.

 

I don't agree with his actions, I do think he was extremely immoral in his actions. Commited nothing short of a number of atrocities. For that I am glad he has met with some justice (that is in reference to the trial). However, Might does not make right. His death fixes nothing and show nothing more than what we already know of the pseudo-medieval Middle Eastern States. They are brutual and behind on the times. Lacking in crucial compassion, moral integrity, and can not match the deed to word.

 

I abhor Saddams part in this all, but I do not think that killing the killer is the way to show what is the righteous, integral, ethical, legitimate, and legal action. All they have proved in this, is that killing is a viable solution to their problems.

 

What kind of message is that to teach your kids, or otherwise send out to the world!?

[Buffy]

Let the powerful demonstrate that they are really for justice, before their acts in the name of justice can be accepted. :(

 

...people who cannot condemn such acts have no right to rejoice on the killing of another unjust ruler.:naughty:

That's what sounds so much like moral relativism: you seem to be saying that there are no absolute standards for whether or not one can act with "justice" or rejoice in it. That is, the past record of the person acting in the name of justice is more important than the record of the offender, so it would be okay for Mother Teresa to punish Hitler, but Saddam could not.

 

The implication of your second quoted statement is akin to saying, I can rejoice in the punishment of an evil person as long as I condemn all evil equally. Where this gets dangerous is--as I said above--if the requirement for this clause is to make no judgement about the severity of the transgretions of the evil person, so that small acts of evil are considered to be equivalent to major acts of evil because otherwise I do not show the requisite "fair-mindedness."

 

Even if I, as an outside observer, get past the bar of being "pure" in the application of my judgements, there is a danger in not judging the entire range of offenses as different with different appropriate punishments. Shoplifting is not the same as nerve gassing an entire town. This is an extreme example, but its important to note because you're getting into an argument of making anything above some arbitrary limit "equally heinous."

 

Forgive me if I've completely misunderstood you, but its what it sounds like, and unfortunately there are many people with this sort of attitude--who, you're right, live in glass houses...

 

Sentence first, verdict afterwards, :phones:

Buffy

[Buffy]

...I do think he was extremely immoral in his actions. Commited nothing short of a number of atrocities. For that I am glad he has met with some justice...His death fixes nothing...I do not think that killing the killer is the way to show what is the righteous, integral, ethical, legitimate, and legal action. All they have proved in this, is that killing is a viable solution to their problems...What kind of message is that to teach your kids...

...and conversely, I think this is the only way to argue against the death of Saddam: "Its wrong, even in the case of one of the most evil people in history." This is immesely different than saying "Saddam shouldn't be sentenced to death because he's no worse than Bush." I respect the former statement and have contempt for the latter...

 

Rightwrong,

Buffy

[hallenrm]

That's what sounds so much like moral relativism:

 

Thanks a lot, I learnt a new term I was not aware of. That's indeed the sweet fruits of a prolonged discussion.

 

Thankfully

 

hallenrm