Did Hussein's execution have any positive effects?

[cleanup]

Seems to me like it just made him a martyr for Sunni militants? :confused: Personally I think that, certainly Hussein deserved the death penalty, but in reality he deserved much more. So much more in fact, that instead of being executed it would have been more appropriate to have him locked up in solitary confinement for the remainder of his life in the most squalid conditions possible, just habitable enough to keep him alive. Execution is the easy way out for such a man as Hussein. On closer inspection, execution was just about the best thing that could’ve happened to Hussein after having his country invaded, because a leader procures stronger loyalty and passion from his devotees when he's dead than when he's alive and repressed.

So besides inflaming sectarian tensions, what did this whole thing achieve? And wasn't this pretty much Bush's whole purpose of going to Iraq? To do what his dad couldn't?

[Buschmaster]

Well, he's dead.

Sure it sounds stupid, and it doesn't seem like a big positive... But when you think about it... He was a horrible horrible man and just him being dead is nice. And did you see the pictures of people celebrating when he was condemned to death.

I feel it can bring some hope.

Edit: as far as locking him up for the rest of his life... Well, him dropping with a rope around his neck costs basically nothing, him staying alive for a while longer would cost quite a bit for a country that certainly needs its money right now.

[cleanup]

Edit: as far as locking him up for the rest of his life... Well, him dropping with a rope around his neck costs basically nothing, him staying alive for a while longer would cost quite a bit for a country that certainly needs its money right now.

I wouldn't recommend imprisoning him within Iraq. That would make it far too easy for him to break out, be broken out, or be killed.

In fact, I think the fact that his tribunal was held in Iraq is absurd. If it were held in the Hague, none of this baloney would have happened. He would've gotten a fair trial, perhaps may not have been sentenced to death, and if he were, it definitely wouldn't have been videotaped...

[Dont Hurt Me]

Saddam was just a product of a Islamic Society. Islam breeds these guys. Iraq is a waste of time unless your going to remove the Koran,Shariia law and all the other crazy thinking Islam Pushes. Bush's plan is nothing but a scam, these societys need a murdering bastard like Saddam to keep them a little bit under control. We are seeing this everyday in Iraq.

What King Bush should have done was to offer Saddam his rule back and put his tail between his draft dodging legs and go home. Lot of people have died so Iraq can have its civil war again.

[skunk]

Well, he's dead.

Sure it sounds stupid, and it doesn't seem like a big positive... But when you think about it... He was a horrible horrible man and just him being dead is nice. And did you see the pictures of people celebrating when he was condemned to death.In the absence of due process - a show trial on an exemplary charge does not constitute due process - this achieves nothing whatsoever. There is nothing "nice" about him being dead, and it brings no satisfaction or closure to his thousands of victims whose deaths he never had to answer for.

I feel it can bring some hope.

Edit: as far as locking him up for the rest of his life... Well, him dropping with a rope around his neck costs basically nothing, him staying alive for a while longer would cost quite a bit for a country that certainly needs its money right now.His execution brings yet more despair, not hope. Your craven coward of a President may derive some childish satisfaction for having brought about the death of a man who tried to have Bush Snr assassinated, but the cost in human and financial terms is incalculable. This is one of the most facile and ill-considered assessments I have yet seen.

[princealfie]

Another day, another dollar.

[skunk]

Another fine contribution to the debate.

[Queso]

Whilst the opinion that Saddam being dead equals a good thing is quite valid, the manner of his execution was anything but. It hasn't helped at all, and if anything it will result in the violence spreading out of Iraq and into other Arab states.

[cleanup]

Islam breeds these guys. Iraq is a waste of time unless your going to remove the Koran,Shariia law and all the other crazy thinking Islam Pushes.

You're kidding, right?

[BoyBach]

As has already been said, the execution of Saddam Hussein has created a martyr for the Sunni's, and has provided revenge for the Shia and Kurds.

However, the tragedy of the execution (beyond the obvious) is that Saddam Hussein has come out of it with a better image than those of the lawyers, witnesses and his executioners. Saddam's last image to world should not be one of the dignity he showed despite the provocation of all those present at his death. Surely it should have been of him, a broken man, being lead away from the International Court to face life in prison for all of his crimes.

[clevin]

some iraqis said they saw saddam's face in the sky in the evening,......

shall see whats gonna happen

[mactastic]

Saddam was just a product of a Islamic Society.
Saddam was as much a Muslim as Bush is a Christian. :rolleyes:

[solvs]

No. It didn't help. It just made things worse. We turned a despot into a martyr. A martyr for people who should have hated him more than we do. He was a terrible person, but I'd prefer we were better than that and held life more sacred than he did. Revenge serves no purpose other than to further inflame the hatred and prevents him from being brought to justice for the other crimes he was to be tried for.

I'm not exactly sad he'd dead, but seeing as how we're sending more troops to Iraq now, as the violence increases, yeah... I'm thinking it didn't help at all and actually did make things somewhat worse.

[Dont Hurt Me]

Saddam was as much a Muslim as Bush is a Christian. :rolleyes:I would say Saddam was more Muslim then George Christian.

[obeygiant]

There is nothing "nice" about him being dead, and it brings no satisfaction or closure to his thousands of victims whose deaths he never had to answer for.

Many Iraqis would take issue with that. There are "nice" things about him being dead. It brings to an end the rain of a maniacal tyrant who is second only to Adolf Hitler in his plans to commit genocide upon thousands of men, women, and children.

[Queso]

Many Iraqis would take issue with that. There are "nice" things about him being dead. It brings to an end the rain of a maniacal tyrant who is second only to Adolf Hitler in his plans to commit genocide upon thousands of men, women, and children.
Josef Stalin and Pol Pot obviously never existed in your world.

[BoyBach]

Many Iraqis would take issue with that. There are "nice" things about him being dead. It brings to an end the rain of a maniacal tyrant who is second only to Adolf Hitler in his plans to commit genocide upon thousands of men, women, and children.


One of the "nice things about him being dead" is that his conviction and execution for the death of 148 Shia Iraqis in Dujail has conveniently silenced the only person who could have embarrassed the US, UK and other governments.

If he had gone to trial for his more serious crimes, such as the Anfal campaign or the Iranian invasion, imagine the fun that Saddam Hussein would have had in the court telling the world that his weapons and political support came from the very same people who are now trying to convict him for those very crimes.

[scu]

Did Saddam’s death have a positive effect? This question is much too early to answer. It remains to be seen how much reference will be made to him by those fighting over there. From what I have seen on the news, most of the rebels were not using him as the motivation to fight. Islam was their motivation, not one individual. Therefore one would conclude that his death should not have that much of a positive effect.

However, there were millions who benefited from his reign and millions who suffered as well. Those who benefited have now lost hope of seeing him back in power, and a few might give up fighting for an eventual return of the Baath Party which Saddam lead. Those who suffered will feel justice was served and might be more motivated to move on and improve their country without his constant shadow in the background.

I would not necessarily contribute a sudden decrease in US Deaths for Jan. to his death. 13 US Soldiers died in the first 12 days of Jan. compared to 49 in the first 12 days of December. Also the number of Iraqi Security Forces deaths are down drastically. But if this trend continues for the next four months even before we get more troops there, then it would be safe to say that his death did have some initial positive effects.

What has not changed is the killing of civilians. This is motivated by hatred for one another not their love for Saddam.

[geese]

Saddam was just a product of a Islamic Society. Islam breeds these guys. Iraq is a waste of time unless your going to remove the Koran,Shariia law and all the other crazy thinking Islam Pushes. Bush's plan is nothing but a scam, these societys need a murdering bastard like Saddam to keep them a little bit under control. We are seeing this everyday in Iraq.


To say Saddam Hussain was a product of Islam is like saying Stalin was a product of Athism. Tyranny and violence isnt an exclusive quality of Islam now is it? Bigotry and violence has existed in all civilisations and ideologies.

And how is Hussain more muslim then bush a christian? Can you qualify that please, particularly as Tariq Aziz (his foreign secretary) was a Roman Christian. How many non-christians are in the Bush government.

[stoid]

All I know is that between dropping more man-power on Iraq, and this new initiative to raise the federal minimum wage by a considerable amount, Bush seems to be bent on sending this country into a downward spiral for at least the four years after he gets out of office.

[Dont Hurt Me]

To say Saddam Hussain was a product of Islam is like saying Stalin was a product of Athism. Tyranny and violence isnt an exclusive quality of Islam now is it? Bigotry and violence has existed in all civilisations and ideologies.

And how is Hussain more muslim then bush a christian? Can you qualify that please, particularly as Tariq Aziz (his foreign secretary) was a Roman Christian. How many non-christians are in the Bush government.Do some research of Islam and what it promotes, wake up and look into Sharia law and what it is, might want to look up the definition of Jihad also many call themself a Christian but are anything but a christian. Bush & Aziz both fall into this category. Bush after loosing one election decided he wasnt ever going to loose the Christian vote no matter what it took. They are just playing people, people like you.

[pseudobrit]

Many Iraqis would take issue with that. There are "nice" things about him being dead. It brings to an end the rain of a maniacal tyrant who is second only to Adolf Hitler in his plans to commit genocide upon thousands of men, women, and children.

The reign ended in the first week of US invasion.

The current ****-storm (with rain) started just after.

Mao killed more people than Hitler and Stalin combined. Saddam was a piece of crap dictator who shouldn't be mentioned in the same breath as the true mass murderers of history.

[zimv20]

sorry, but if we're basing our military responses by number of people currently being killed, where's our massive deployment to darfur?

why weren't we in cambodia facing down pol pot?

why didn't we stop the slaughter in rwanda?

and so on.

[Dont Hurt Me]

sorry, but if we're basing our military responses by number of people currently being killed, where's our massive deployment to darfur?

why weren't we in cambodia facing down pol pot?

why didn't we stop the slaughter in rwanda?

and so on.
No Oil,No Oil,No Oil,:) do I get the prize?

[zimv20]

No Oil,No Oil,No Oil,:) do I get the prize?
yes. yes you do.

[~loserman~]

No Oil,No Oil,No Oil,:) do I get the prize?

Exactly...
Which is the way it should be. Oil brings national interest. i.e. supports our way of life.
No oil. No war. It's as simple as that.

[geese]

Do some research of Islam and what it promotes, wake up and look into Sharia law and what it is,

I'm a muslim myself thank-you-very-much. I clearly know more about it then you do.

[solvs]

Many Iraqis would take issue with that. There are "nice" things about him being dead. It brings to an end the rain of a maniacal tyrant who is second only to Adolf Hitler in his plans to commit genocide upon thousands of men, women, and children.
Well, if a quick death is justice to you and them, then mission accomplished I guess. Practical and political ramification be damned. But for you to compare him to Adolf Hitler is ignorance at best. And kind of insulting. No. Where. Close.

And yeah, his reign was over when we took him out. It's everything after we have a problem with. This death did nothing to help that, and as we've said, might have actually made things worse.

Do some research of Islam and what it promotes
Terrorists are to Islam as the KKK/Nazis is to Christianity. We know you hate religion, but about a billion other very peaceful Muslims might disagree with you. Please don't perpetuate the hate. :)

[DZ/015]

I smiled and felt happy when I heard this vicious bastard died. I'm sleeping well. :)

[skunk]

I smiled and felt happy when I heard this vicious bastard died. I'm sleeping well. :)How sad is that?

[DZ/015]

How sad is that?

Not sad at all. He was a dictator, a tyrant. The world is better off without him. Period.

[solvs]

I smiled and felt happy when I heard this vicious bastard died. I'm sleeping well. :)

How Christian of you. Jesus would be proud, I'm sure. And I'm sure when terrorists are blowing people up using the same type of reasoning, you have no problem with that?

Didn't think so.

[DZ/015]

How Christian of you. Jesus would be proud, I'm sure. And I'm sure when terrorists are blowing people up using the same type of reasoning, you have no problem with that?

Didn't think so.

I'm no Christian. Those who believe, for good or ill, are fools.


We are here alone. No gods or God.

[solvs]

I'm no Christian.

I always say that as a general statement when people say such things, and it's always taken literally. You're ignoring my point. They want to kill us, we want to kill them. So everybody winds up dead.

Revenge is not a good strategy.

[Dont Hurt Me]

I'm a muslim myself thank-you-very-much. I clearly know more about it then you do.Great ,I would love to hear your take of sharia law and of Jihad and on the infidel and on non believer's in your religion?

Does Anyone really have the right to force something on others?

Im not claiming im a practicing christian because Im not and dont really believe in most religions are anything more then a business selling a product. But I do LOVE some of the things Jesus said & preached such as

Let him who is without sin cast the first stone........Think about what this phrase alone could do for Islam.

Or Love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself. Not just love your Islamic neighbor as yourself.

These idea's came to us 2,000 years ago and if Mankind could implement these two 99% of our problems would be gone. Much better then a eye for a eye,tooth for a tooth, revenge,jihad, etc. Revenge & hate just destroys everyone and if you look at places that practice this they are usually a big mess.

[pseudobrit]

Does Anyone really have the right to force something on others?

I'm all for forcible conversion.
66222

[Zwhaler]

Yeah, Saddam was a horrible man but he was a horrible man back when he was our buddy as well. Its just that s soon as he turned on us (USA) we portrayed him as a bad person, while the thruth is that nothing actually changed other than him turning on the US. And no, killing him will have no positive effect. It will make a bunch of rednecks feel "safer from them terrorists" but thats about it.

[skunk]

Yeah, Saddam was a horrible man but he was a horrible man back when he was our buddy as well. Its just that s soon as he turned on us (USA) we portrayed him as a bad person, while the thruth is that nothing actually changed other than him turning on the US. And no, killing him will have no positive effect. It will make a bunch of rednecks feel "safer from them terrorists" but thats about it.You're half right. He did not actually "turn on the US" at all. The US turned on him after leading him up the garden path. Up until the moment he invaded Kuwait - thinking with good reason that the US Ambassador had given the green light to do so - he was ever so friendly. This needs to be repeated until it is understood.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War

An investigation by the Senate Banking Committee in 1994 determined that the U.S. Department of Commerce had approved, for the purpose of research, the shipping of dual-use biological agents to Iraq during the mid-1980s, including Bacillus anthracis (anthrax), later identified by the Pentagon as a key component of the Iraqi biological warfare program, as well as Clostridium botulinum, Histoplasma capsulatum, Brucella melitensis, and Clostridium perfringens. The Committee report noted that each of these had been "considered by various nations for use in war."[4] Declassified U.S. government documents indicate that the U.S. government had confirmed that Iraq was using chemical weapons (but not biological weapons that the agents being exported could have been used for) "almost daily" during the Iran-Iraq conflict as early as 1983.[5] The chairman of the Senate committee, Don Riegle, said: “The executive branch of our government approved 771 different export licenses for sale of dual-use technology to Iraq. I think it’s a devastating record”.[6]
The level of U.S. covert aid to Iraq during this period is difficult to quantify. Hussein is widely known to have received battlefield “intelligence” from the U.S. This, corresponding with other facts, leaks and rumors, is seen by many as an indicator of substantial CIA involvement during the era. This remains unproven, however.

U.S. economic aid to Iraq
Chiefly, the U.S. government provided Iraq with economic aid. Iraq’s war with Iran, and the consequent disruption in its oil export business, had caused the country to enter a deep debt. U.S. government economic assistance allowed Hussein to continue using resources for the war which otherwise would have to have been diverted. Between 1983 and 1990, Iraq received $5 billion in export credit guarantees from the Commodity Credit Corporation program run by the Department of Agriculture, beginning at $400 million per year in 1983 and increasing to over $1 billion per year in 1988 and 1989, finally coming to an end after another $500 million was granted in 1990.[7] Besides agricultural credits, the U.S. also provided Hussein with other loans. In 1985 the U.S. Export-Import Bank extended more than $684 million in credits to Iraq to build an oil pipeline through Jordan with the construction being undertaken by Californian construction firm Bechtel Corporation.[2]

Cooling of relations
Following the war, however, there were moves within the Congress of the United States to isolate Iraq diplomatically and economically over concerns about human rights violations, its dramatic military build-up, and hostility to Israel. Specifically, in 1988 the Senate passed the “Prevention of Genocide Act of 1988,” which imposed sanctions on Iraq. The bill was not, however, adopted by the House.[8] These moves were disowned by some Congressmen though some U.S. officials, such as Reagan's head of Policy Planning Staff at the State Department and Assistant Secretary for East Asian Affairs Paul Wolfowitz disagreed with giving support to the Iraqi regime.
The relationship between Iraq and the United States remained unhindered until the day Iraq invaded Kuwait. On October 2, 1989, President George H.W. Bush signed secret National Security Directive 26, which begins, “Access to Persian Gulf oil and the security of key friendly states in the area are vital to U.S. national security."
With respect to Iraq, the directive stated, "Normal relations between the United States and Iraq would serve our longer term interests and promote stability in both the Persian Gulf and the Middle East."

Eve of the invasion
In late July, 1990, as negotiations between Iraq and Kuwait stalled, Iraq massed troops on Kuwait’s borders and summoned American Ambassador April Glaspie for an unanticipated meeting with Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. Two transcripts of that meeting have been produced, both of them controversial. According to the transcripts, Saddam outlined his grievances against Kuwait, while promising that he would not invade Kuwait before one more round of negotiations. In the version published by The New York Times on September 23, 1990, Glaspie expressed concern over the troop buildup, but went on to say:
"We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late ’60s. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via [Chadli] Klibi [then Arab League General Secretary] or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly."
Some have interpreted these statements as diplomatic language signaling an American "green light" for the invasion. Although the State Department did not confirm (or deny) the authenticity of these transcripts, U.S. sources say that it had handled everything “by the book” (in accordance with the U.S.’s official neutrality on the Iraq-Kuwait issue) and had not signaled Iraqi President Saddam Hussein any approval for defying the Arab League’s Jeddah crisis squad, which had conducted the negotiations. Many believe that Saddam’s expectations may have been influenced by a perception that the US was not interested in the issue, for which the Glaspie transcript is merely an example and that he may have felt so in part because of U.S. support for the reunification of Germany, another act that he considered to be nothing more than the nullification of an artificial, internal border. Others, such as Kenneth Pollack, believe he had no such illusion, or that he simply underestimated the extent of American military response.
In November 1989, CIA director William Webster met with the Kuwaiti head of security, Brigadier Fahd Ahmed Al-Fahd. Subsequent to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, Iraq claimed to have found a memorandum pertaining to their conversation. The Washington Post reported that Kuwait’s foreign minister fainted when confronted with this document at an Arab summit in August. Later, Iraq cited this memorandum as evidence of a CIA - Kuwaiti plot to destabilize Iraq economically and politically. The CIA and Kuwait have described the meeting as routine and the memorandum as a forgery. The purported document reads in part:
"We agreed with the American side that it was important to take advantage of the deteriorating economic situation in Iraq in order to put pressure on that country's government to delineate our common border. The Central Intelligence Agency gave us its view of appropriate means of pressure, saying that broad cooperation should be initiated between us on condition that such activities be coordinated at a high level."

[Cassie]

It's horrible that we have fallen to his level. An eye for an eye doesn't go over so wel in my book. We aren't the ones to take revenge. And yet we do anyway.

This IS sad.

[psychofreak]

It's horrible that we have fallen to his level. An eye for an eye doesn't go over so wel in my book. We aren't the ones to take revenge. And yet we do anyway.

This IS sad.

An eye for an eye and everyone ends up blind.

Shoulda let him rot in prison - now he's a martyr.

Anyone who says that the world is better off now is an idiot - now NK and Iran think that they have a chance of succeeding against the US.

[cleanup]

Great ,I would love to hear your take of sharia law and of Jihad and on the infidel and on non believer's in your religion?

What you fail to understand is that most Muslims are in fact... get this... normal, rational, peaceful people. :rolleyes: You may disagree with Islam and religion as a whole, but don't keep pushing the buttons of those who you are afraid will kill you if you don't convert to their religion.

If you honestly really think that Muslims are out to spread Islam by the sword, then why are you antagonizing them? You're next!

Sheesh.

[mactastic]

How many non-christians are in the Bush government.Well, there's Joe Lieberman... :p