[Zenon]

Saddam Hussein will be hanged in an unspecified date after being found guilty today, what is your reaction?

[Sidders]

For some reason I feel quite sorry for him. He probably deserves to die after everything he's done, but I'd rather it was done in a more humane fasion.

[gbm]

I think its more of a punishment for someone to live and have to be reminded of what they have done which would make them deserve to be executed or something to the same effect. Perhaps having to go down a road everyday with people pelting you with fruit and veg (mouldy)

[Loudmouthed_Cutie]

well i think that killing him is still murder and two wrongs dont make a right. And what will people who do like him do when he is killed? i agree with gbm about it being more of a punishment to be made to live and remember what you have done for he rest of your life

[Longview01]

Life in Prison is a better punishment for him.

He can and will appeal still tho

[fish heads]

He can and will appeal still tho

Haha. I wonder what the outcome of the appeal will be...

[kendra k]

as much as i hate the death penalty, i have to say i prefer the idea of hanging over many other forms. why sanitize it? make you feel better?

iraq could use him now in some ways.

[Yudster]

I can't support the death penalty, although I am as prone as anyone else to those emotional outbursts when you hear about someone who did something dreadful, that you just want them to die - but it's just emotional, and its no more than revenge, which can't work in reality as a punitive measure. And it doesn't. But the fact is, the death penalty is in effect in many places, and if that is the legal sentence for that crime in that place, then argument is inappropriate. And for all that I don't support capital punishment, I couldn't see myself arguing to keep Saddam alive anyway.

[DemonHorse]

For all he's done he shouldn't be shot, hung etc... but left to rot and die in a room with no food, water or light.

[SAV1OUR]

"JAGSHEMASH!!

Please you have 30 days to free me, if you not come and blow prison up, I will be execute"

[AndyClayton]

so when does bush get hung cause to me he has done the same crimes

[SAV1OUR]

so when does bush get hung cause to me he has done the same crimes

Yeah I thought they were gonna make a day of it, our modern day Guy Fawkes should surely have been lumped in with saddam, stick that grinning bliar in too!

They're all dirty old shí'ítes

[kendra k]

no comment.

[SAV1OUR]

yes comment.

Next post..

[MK Chris]

as much as i hate the death penalty, i have to say i prefer the idea of hanging over many other forms.

My sentiments exactly.. if you get the technical stuff right like the length of the rope and the drop, etc., the person will die instantly.

However, as I've said before, the death penalty is never the right decision.

On top of all that, half the Iraqis still support him so he will basically die a martyr.

[Yudster]

so when does bush get hung cause to me he has done the same crimes

A lot of people are of the opinion that George Bush - and Tony Blair - are culpable in the unlawful deaths of many people. But even if they are absolutely demonstrably guilty of causing every death whcih they could possibly be linked with in the context of the war in Iraq, their crimes would be a drop in the bucket in comparison to what Saddam Hussein has perpetrated over many, many years. Of course the other side to that is that one murder is just as much murder as ten thousand murders - and this is a valid view. However, whilst I wouldn't attempt to pronounce on the legality of Mr Bush's actions, I do think it is true that demonstrating their ILLEGALITY would be far more difficult and complex than demonstrating the illegality of Saddam's actions. Perhaps this means that Mr Bush could be justified in what he has done? Or perhaps it just means that in the eyes of the world, it matters more HOW you kill, than WHETHER you kill? I don't know.

[Boboff]

No human being should be able to pronounce death on another person, fundamentally it is wrong. Sadam is an evil man of that I have no doubt, but to kill him only makes matters worse.
George Bush and Blair are politicians, they choose the policies of there countries on the basis they were democratically elected to do so, that's right more people voted for them than anyone else, and the result was that they run our countries, and make our decisions, it has always been that way in a democracy. We have the choice not to vote for them next time. The people of Iraq were never given this option. I am no expert on the middle East but Irag was really messed up after us Brits messed with it, and then we supported Sadam against Iran, then we didn't, George Bush Senior lost his nerve in the first Iraq war, and tiny Tim was never going to forget it.
I think Sadam would make a great after dinner speaker with the money going to help rebuild Hospitals.

[MK Chris]

There is, of course, the argument that he should never have been captured in the first place, because the reason we invaded was to find weapons of mass destruction, none of which have ever been found.

[Yudster]

Was the WMD issue the only stated aim of invasion? I was never quite clear on that. And look - this is going to be a really, really dumb question, I think, but can someone tell me - why are nations such as the USA and Britain, which openly have - and presumably would, in extremis, therefore use - weapons of mass destruction allowed to pronounce upon whether or not nations such as Iraq, North Korea, Pakistan, India etc should be allowed to have them? I'm sure there is a perfectly proper and valid reason for this, and I am sure I am stupid not to know what it is, but I don't. Someone please explain.

[DemonHorse]

Bush went there for oil... though he used the crap excuse of WMDs... yet we have PROOF that Korea has WMDs, but do we see an invasion?
Do they have any oil?

Anyone seeing the connection there?

[Boboff]

Basically it's because they hurt.

it's all to do with proliferation, i.e. the big boys agreed once they got cool toys, that no one else should have them, because they were actually a bit scary, so knowing best they said no one else could have them.

Big Boys also benefit because they can then sell little boys guns and bombs and aeroplanes so they can all still play together nicely, but not risk armageden, or a loss of revenue for the Military procurement services.

[Yudster]

So, let me get this clear - basically, USA and UK and SOME of Europe is allowed to have WMD because we are intelligent enough to use them wisely - or not at all. But countries which are (coincidentally, I am sure) mainly Moslem in their cultural background are not clever enough or nice enough to have such big scary things. And someone - I wonder who? - appointed the USA to be the judge of all this.

I realise that the people of the USA voted to make George Bush their President (or at least, so we are told we must believe). I'm just wondering who made him president of all these other countries? Actually I'm not having an anti-George Bush rant here, he as an individual is not what I am worried about - it is the idea that the USA sits in jurisdiction over the world - at the say-so of - well, who?!

[SAV1OUR]

So, let me get this clear - basically, USA and UK and SOME of Europe is allowed to have WMD because we are intelligent enough to use them wisely - or not at all. But countries which are (coincidentally, I am sure) mainly Moslem in their cultural background are not clever enough or nice enough to have such big scary things. And someone - I wonder who? - appointed the USA to be the judge of all this.

I realise that the people of the USA voted to make George Bush their President (or at least, so we are told we must believe). I'm just wondering who made him president of all these other countries? Actually I'm not having an anti-George Bush rant here, he as an individual is not what I am worried about - it is the idea that the USA sits in jurisdiction over the world - at the say-so of - well, who?!

It was God, thats how it is see, wet dream = blood, fire, war etc, dont you see? God knows everything, OK. But he didnt reckon he'd get slapped about by Allah some, no, he never saw him coming, it was the war of the Gods, perfectly good explanation, that'll get little Bushie off the hook, hes onto a winner there!..he thought.

[Yudster]

I don't think he's actually used that one. Thankfully.

[kendra k]

first of all, he was elected on a technicality the first time (and some shady dealings), and there's too much shadiness about 2004. full disclosure- i never voted for him, but i live in california, so that point is mute.

anyhow, as stupid and patronising as it sounds, i think fowler has it right about why only certain countries can have WMDs and other can't. i think nuclear weapons are more of a burden than a blessing, but i know that north korea and iran don't agree. should these countries have the right to build the bomb? i suppose, as its their choice. do i want them to have one? of course not. it's hard to see the citizens suffer at the hands of their leaders' egos, but the same could be said for the usa and the uk.