Saddam Was Hung At 10 Pm

[magicrules22311]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/...ein/index.html Finally!

[blackberry829]

Hmm...I just read this on CBC as well...kinda' weird, after all of that. I wonder what kind of impact this'll have. o_o

[Umbrasquall]

I just heard about it. It was inevitable, and whatever happens is whatever was going to happen.

[Tornado Joe]

I understand the guy was a tyrant and all that, and I suppose those who's family he has effected can rejoice - but whatever happened to that guy, uh... Osama-something-or-other? Bin-Laden? The US sacrifices 3,000 troops to catch this guy (who was buried in a whole, what a threat ) yet the guy who masterminded the the death of the same amount of innocent people right here in my home country is out there roaming free somewhere in the Pakistan/Afghan mountains. Will be interesting to see how the US media plays this - up as a "victory", or down as a "whatever".

[Conforming Non-Conformist]

Saddam was not hung because of his tyrannical regime, crimes against humanity or anything to do with the murders of hundreds of innocents. If this was the case then G.W. Bush would receive the same sentence. Saddam, in 2000, told OPEC that he would only sell his OIL in Euro dollars and not the only dollar that always accompanied oil trade, the US dollar. Since the US could not strongly back its dollar after the large Gold payout from its national treasury to France in the 1970's, it struck a deal with OPEC to trade only in US dollars, increasing its dollar with the backing of oil. Saddam was hung because he was a threat to the US economy (the real darkness) and was an was an easy target after the attacks on the states (he had an already tainted reputation with no military capabel of opposing the Us Army). For some reason (most likely through mass media persuasion), the US people believed, or at least did nothing but continue to watch their glowing Box-God, as it told them that Iraq was the real problem, behind which was Sadadam. Keep an open eye out for the same to happen to Hugo Chavez (already put on the chopping block by heavy Reight Wing supporter, yet strangely dense, Pat Robertson...ie. through his televised "execution allusion") or Iran president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (his country the next possible target of the out of control US regime), as both are threatening the US economy by strongly trading their oil in the Euro currency and NOT in US dollars. The real threat is the tyrannical regime of the US government who are turning their nation and all supporting nations into a herd of yes-sheep. I am deeply disteressed at the ease of execution of Saddam 26 YEARS after the crimes he committed. If the US believes in justice and speedy trial of any persons who oppose their sense of (ego-maniacial fundamentialist dellusions) justice, then why wait 26 YEARS for the trial and execution of someone who so "obviously" is a threat to a distorted truth of freedom and liberty and every other flag-blinded pride held in high-esteem by those in America that call themselves "true Americans". This is a forum for those who believe that dreams hold the answer to many things in their lives but there are some things that need to be waken up to..especially the idea of the American Dream, called that because it can only be believed whe you are asleep.

[Tsen]

By DAMN you've got things wrong. Not necessarily entirely wrong, but the bits you got right are all in the wrong order. Saddam was NOT executed "to protect the US economy". Hell, his execution's probably going to be hell on us politically, and to a certain extent, economically as well. Now, YES, the US had economic reasons for invading Iraq. Whether they were the deciding reasons behind the invasion, I don't really give a damn. Argue that up all you want, it's speculation at this point. But the decision to hang Saddam was SOLELY the choice of the Iraqi courts, and for his crimes AGAINST THE IRAQI PEOPLE. US influenced decision? Most likely. We DO have a heavy role in Iraqi politics--it would be hard for it NOT to be a US-influenced decision. But I remain steadfastly certain that whether or not the US had any influence in the trial, Saddam would have met the same end, because the decision was NOT made based on oil deals or the going rate of the dollar. The decision was made because he was a murderer, and not a popular one. (Dictators seldom are.) Now, without US intervention to catch Saddam and put him on trial, obviously things wouldn't have turned out this way--but it still remained the Iraqi people's choice to have him hung. And, from the early news reports, a good deal of the nation is quite happy with the results. Yes, it was delayed. 26 years is a long time. But in comparison, it's not really that long--most dictators never face trial, never face justice. Most are forced out in a military coup that installs yet another brutal dictator. The very fact that Saddam faced trial--regardless of how slanted the trial may have been--is an important step in the new Iraq's development. I still remain skeptic that Iraq will put all the pieces together correctly--in fact, I highly doubt this government will bear any semblance of permanence, but at the very least they're moving in the right direction.

[Conforming Non-Conformist]

By DAMN you've got things wrong. Not necessarily entirely wrong, but the bits you got right are all in the wrong order. Saddam was NOT executed "to protect the US economy". Hell, his execution's probably going to be hell on us politically, and to a certain extent, economically as well. Now, YES, the US had economic reasons for invading Iraq. Whether they were the deciding reasons behind the invasion, I don't really give a damn. Argue that up all you want, it's speculation at this point. But the decision to hang Saddam was SOLELY the choice of the Iraqi courts, and for his crimes AGAINST THE IRAQI PEOPLE. US influenced decision? Most likely. We DO have a heavy role in Iraqi politics--it would be hard for it NOT to be a US-influenced decision. But I remain steadfastly certain that whether or not the US had any influence in the trial, Saddam would have met the same end, because the decision was NOT made based on oil deals or the going rate of the dollar. The decision was made because he was a murderer, and not a popular one. (Dictators seldom are.) Now, without US intervention to catch Saddam and put him on trial, obviously things wouldn't have turned out this way--but it still remained the Iraqi people's choice to have him hung. And, from the early news reports, a good deal of the nation is quite happy with the results. Yes, it was delayed. 26 years is a long time. But in comparison, it's not really that long--most dictators never face trial, never face justice. Most are forced out in a military coup that installs yet another brutal dictator. The very fact that Saddam faced trial--regardless of how slanted the trial may have been--is an important step in the new Iraq's development. I still remain skeptic that Iraq will put all the pieces together correctly--in fact, I highly doubt this government will bear any semblance of permanence, but at the very least they're moving in the right direction. [/b] Spoken like a true Sleeper. Nevermind looking at the reasons that lead up to a trial held by Iraqis..I couldn't give a care if it was the trial was held by the Inuit, it makes no diference. You could, with any dictator, (and the use of US led force): invade their country, hold their dictator, and the OBVIOUS result: when the distraught people of an oppressed nation (especially one as hate filled as in Iraq) band together in a media led herd, and see the reasons FED to them...react by executing the dictator. Now, it is very clear to see that this would be the result a hundred times over (people who have their children killed are not the most forgiving..especially after being tramplled on for such a long time) and the REASON for the execution was stoked by the US governement, and to a large extent, their government censored media. Maybe you can elaborate for me on how exactly its going to be hell for the US after Saddam (a figurehead of strength in the mid-east) was destroyed by the Almighty United States Power? As this propells more and mroe support for the US I would like see how that can spell anything but success for the US. People are easily swayed by power or should i say the illusion of power. Again, Saddam was a dictator who "was a murderer, and not a popular one" so he was destroyed. I guess it should be fitting for Bush to be sentenced to the same punishment...let it fit the crime right? But wait! Nope forget that one, Bush has popularity (through opinion shaping distractions) so he's doing the right thing for the right REASONS. Oops nope, wrong again...because he isn't. A "moral" execution is much easier to sell rather than "our economy is going down the shitter and we need to destroy those who are strong enough to oppose us"...but i don't think that you'll buy that one. As for Iraq's development...all that means is that another McDonalds can crop up with the foundation of people who will line up for any opportunity to improve their way of life that the american dream has clouded their minds with.When this world is moving in the right direction by shedding the blood of anymore life,it isn't!

[Howie]

For as long as the trial was dragging on for and as much of a disturbance he was creating in court it seems like this came about very quickly. They did not waste any time in executing him. Not like in the states where you sit on death row for 50 years and appeal it time and time again. Aside from that, wasn't he suppose to be triad for many other of his crimes? How does that work. Your first trial cast down the death penalty so it kind of trumps the others?

[shark!]

the trial was a joke...but its good to see a dictator fall. but at what cost? Im pretty sure hanging him definiltly doesn't help much...other than some nice closure for his victims and pr for politicians. ...anyways im always for the end of anyone like saddam lets do bush next!

[Universal Mind]

You won't hear me playing any violins over it. My only disappointment is that he didn't have his limbs cut off with dull, rusty saws and then get thrown into a tank with great whites and tiger sharks that wouldn't be fed anything else until after finishing that meal. We need to keep that in mind for when we (hopefully) talk the Pakistani government into letting us go in to snatch Bin Laden.

[Burns]

I saw a video clip on CNN this morning of the executioners (2 guys in black ski masks) put a black cloth around Saddam's neck in preparation for the hanging. You could see the fear in his eyes - it was creepy. I know they video-taped the actual hanging, but I'm not sure if the video will actually be released or not.

[Spectre]

I know they video-taped the actual hanging, but I'm not sure if the video will actually be released or not. [/b] I've actually seen the whole thing several times on TV. So much for censorship, lol.

[NeAvO]

I don't really know if hanging was the right thing for the Iraqi government to do, don't get me wrong I'm not saying that he shouldn't be punished after all those crimes against humanity. But I think being hung was an easy way out for him. I think he should've been locked up for the rest of his life in solitary confinement ect. But then my opinion would be different to a relative of one of the people that were killed. I just heard about it. It was inevitable, and whatever happens is whatever was going to happen. [/b] That sounds alot like my sig. I know they video-taped the actual hanging, but I'm not sure if the video will actually be released or not. [/b] I bet some when on the internet it will be released.

[Tsen]

It's already out on the internet. I watched it earlier. Out of decency, I won't post it here since it is a bit disturbing, but if anybody wants a link, they can PM me and I'll dig it up for you. Spoken like a true Sleeper.[/b] Yup, let me tell you. I'm totally a sleeper agent for the US government, and I spend all my time arguing with people on a FECKING INTERNET FORUM. Do you just like starting your posts with statements this dense? You could, with any dictator, (and the use of US led force): invade their country, hold their dictator, and the OBVIOUS result: when the distraught people of an oppressed nation (especially one as hate filled as in Iraq) band together in a media led herd, and see the reasons FED to them...react by executing the dictator.[/b] Reasons FED to them? Excuse me, but this guy murdered THOUSANDS of Iraqis. THOUSANDS. Poison gassed entire villages. People don't need to be "fed" those kind of reasons, they stand for themselves. Now, don't get me wrong. I think the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. I don't think it was necessary at all, and while I DO think that Saddam was a nasty, vicious man who needed to be removed from power, I do NOT think that it should have been the US's first priority, and I strongly object to the way the US people were fed misinformation leading to the invasion. ...the REASON for the execution was stoked by the US governement...[/b] No it wasn't. Like I said, it would be hard for the execution to be ENTIRELY independent of US influence, but really, the only large-scale influence the US had on any of that was to remove him from his position of power, enabling the Iraqis to take him for trial. The US didn't need to stoke the fires--they were already burning hot. As this propells more and mroe support for the US.[/b] Don't make me laugh. Are you saying you actually believe that the war in Iraq is pushing the US ahead in popularity polls? HA! Again, Saddam was a dictator who "was a murderer, and not a popular one" so he was destroyed. I guess it should be fitting for Bush to be sentenced to the same punishment...let it fit the crime right?[/b] Except that Saddam led a brutal reign of terror over several decades, gassed entire villages of his own nation, murdered all opposing political parties, and made a regular practice of oppressing people over their religious beliefs. Now, I'm not a Bush fan--but last time I checked, the democrats weren't being lined up and shot in the streets for opposing him, were they? Bush has popularity[/b] LMFAO! Just an FYI--polls currently show Bush's support at about 39% and dropping. A "moral" execution is much easier to sell rather than "our economy is going down the shitter and we need to destroy those who are strong enough to oppose us"...but i don't think that you'll buy that one.[/b] Why the hell would killing Saddam make our economy stronger? The current cost of the war in Iraq is at $379 BILLION. That's $379,000,000,000 dollars. Seems to me that's making a MUCH larger dent in our economy than what we'd gain from all of that. As for Iraq's development...all that means is that another McDonalds can crop up with the foundation of people who will line up for any opportunity to improve their way of life that the american dream has clouded their minds with.When this world is moving in the right direction by shedding the blood of anymore life,it isn't![/b] I never argued that the war was good for Iraq. I simply said that it was a good step for them to hold a decent and relatively fair trial. I ALSO said that I did not foresee that having any significant positive impact in the long run. Remember, I'm OPPOSED to the war in Iraq, I just think that Saddam deserved what he got.

[MSG]

Tsen stop arguing with him. He's a teenager, his warped view won't change.

[Tsen]

Point taken.

[Indecent Exposure]

Okay elts all be sensible here, and not get all agitated we are all going to have differnt views for my side, the war on Iraq had economic basis, Saddam was an ally when neccesary. The gassing of the Kurds, a war crime he wwas charged with was used by the US government as properganda before. You may already know that the gassing of the Kurds was also blamed on Ayatollah Khomeni. Saddam Hussein was an oppresive dictator, but when others were campaigning against his disgusting regime, Ronald Reagan was forcing chemical weapons down his bloody throat. This all ties in to, the Islamic Reolvution, The last Shah of Iran and the US' disgusting support for him and his secret police SAVAK. I dont want to go off topic and get into it. But what I am saying is, the war on Iraq was for economic gain. We are not the world policemen, if we wish to take that role on, where were we during the Rwandad genoicde. I'll tell you where, nowhere to be seen. the US went in, one soldier died and they came out. Why? Because Rwanda is not rich with oil. IF Saddam deserves to hang, MR Bush and MR Blair deserve to hang with him. They have killed just as many people. And finally, I dont support there death penalty at all, but thats a differnt issue. Imran

[Roryflyguy]

<div align="center"> ...lets do bush next&#33;[/b] Amen to that&#33; </div> Lol, yes, i like to center things... <div align="center">CENTER RULES</div>

[CryoDragoon]

it was just on the news, the execution of saddam, recorded on a mobile phone... (can also be found on youtube (yet here, they didn't made the screen go black when the hatch opened up)). i think he truly deserves to get the death penalty. he deserves the punishment. i do think the gallows are a good way for him to die: quick and painless... no matter how butal his regime was, he still is a human, and should be treated like one, even when he gets hanged... i DO find it truly disgusting that he was executed in the middle of his prayer... i mean: he deserves the punishment, no protest at that, but to hang him right in the middle of his prayer is just disgusting... I think you should treat a human like a human, even if they get hanged... i suddenly felt a whole lot of anger and hate then... towards the people who did that, as well as for my sister, who actually found it the right thing to do... whatever... quote for today: "A human remains a human, even when sentenced to the gallows"

[Sagea]

I say good riddance. Saddam wanted to be shot by U.S. troops, since that would be an honorable death at the enemies hands. But he doesn't deserve an honorable death, so he got a quick and violent death. And the comparisions to Bush and Blair don't hold. Bush and Blair were acting in the interests of the nations (no matter what you may think, can you see inside their heads?), Saddam was acting in his own interest. And at the time of the 9/11 attacks, everyone was for going to war on terror. Including you, I'm sure. EDIT: However, I do wonder if he had any regrets *other than losing the war in the first place*... It'd be interesting. And CryoDragoon, I personally don't see how you could call him a human being, after the atrocities he commited, all in his own name.

[CryoDragoon]

And CryoDragoon, I personally don't see how you could call him a human being, after the atrocities he commited, all in his own name. [/b] So you'd rather lower yourself to the level of saddam himself and make him suffer, than to think and act like a human being, about a human being?

[Indecent Exposure]

Im busy currently i'll reply to thaty tomorow, your point is pathetic, with huge holes which I will expolit in a few hours =D dont debate things of which you have no knowledge Imran

[Sagea]

You say I have no knowledge, yet I personally know someone who has been to the place we are discussing. Have you? Oh well. Whatever squirts your mustard. (Sorry, I just had to say that. ) I'll be waiting for your reply... And don't say my dad was duped, since you don't even know him.

[Indecent Exposure]

That was utterly pathetic. At the time of 9/11 I did not supprot a war on terror, Because terror is abstract, it is a war on no particular country, allowing the US free rein to attack any country under this facade Also 9/11 had ntohing to do with the war on Iraq as no links to al-Qaeda were found. The only links are that Iraq is an islamic country. Attacking Iraq was not retaliation to 9/11 as Saddam played no role in 9/11, as much as they tried to link him to it for political gain Saddam was very effeicent at cracking down on fundemental mulims in his country As a result Americas greatest allies i nthe newly occupied Iraq aare the Supreme Islamic council of Iraq Saddam feared an islamic revolution similar to that in Iran and therefore cracked down hard on fundemental muslims, they were a threat to his regime. You link is pathetic, based on nothing and has just been severed. Now, next up, can you see in Saddams head? No, im not defennding him. What i'm saying is, regardless of the intmerests, all three people have been repsoinsble dor the death of thousands. They have abused their power. People like you have fell for their propaganda, Saddam never had weapons of mass destruction. The weapons he had were sold to him at very cheap prices by Ronald Reagan, along with maps as to better target these weapons. Please bring me proof of any links between Saddam and al-Qaeda and we ill continue this discussion. otherwise, let it lie and you know, back down. =D Imran

[xcrissxcrossx]

I feel we were trying to take over iraq and we succeeded. We go over there and start trying to bring Saddam (their powerful LEADER) to point where he can no longer lead, then we send in soldiers to patrol the streets and recently we have been forcing them to get a president and telling them how to rule their country, we have complete control over iraq, and i feel this is what bush wanted as soon as he told them to go in. It makes me sick. The death of their former leader seals the statement that the USA has officially taken Iraq. I wonder who is next.