I find it, oddly enough, rather humorous that topics such as these always end up as heated debates and arguments. You can say as much as you want that you're just talking, but from what I see here, everyone wants their point made. The fact is, guys, that this man was executed and that there is nothing you could do about it. The fact is, we elected George W. Bush two times in a row to be our leader, our president. There is nothing you can do about it. We could try as much as we could to impeach him. It won't happen. He's going to sit in the White House for another 2 years and there is nothing you can do about it. Whoever decided Saddam to be executed felt that it was the only way to carry out a just punishment for Saddam's crimes against humanity. This was their opinion, and they carried it out. Whether you like it or not, it happened. For some, justice was done. For others, it was not. I'm going to touch on several topics here, so here I go. George W. Bush: From what I see here, most, if not all of us, seem to agree that George W. Bush is not a great president. Correct me if I'm wrong, but some of you seem to have a lot of hate for this man. Some people say this man is killing innocent people every day. That, my friends, is not true. Every soldier who is sent to Iraq made the decision to join the armed forces and fight for their nation. They knew what was going to happen. They knew that whether they liked it or not, they would most likely end up fighting in Iraq. They are dying because they made that decision to risk their lives. Those killed under Saddam's rule were personally chosen by Saddam to be executed. It wasn't their decision, it was his. Bush doesn't want people in America, or Iraq, to die. Saddam did. If we were to compare the leadership of Bush and Saddam, Bush is a better leader. To some of us, he is a moronical man who lacks intelligence. But, would you rather have a man who personally decides to kill you for believing in something you don't, or a man who, even though he seems to lack intelligence, still has you live in a free nation? I say freedom. In some sense, the Bush administration's view on the war on Iraq is a sign of ignorance, but also a sign of understanding. I can understand Bush's idea of making Iraq a democratic nation and ally against the war on Terror, but we can all agree that there are too many troops being sent and too little troops being taken out. They're understanding, but also ignoring, the fact that troops and civilians are being killed each day. It's too early, yet too late. We're too far in to make a mass removal, but we're not far in enough to store democracy to this nation. I'll tell you right now that if you think Bush is a bad man, he isn't. He's not a murderer. He's not murdering your soldiers. Saddam was murdering innocent people for beliefs. I don't see Bush handpicking people out for their beliefs, and having them killed. Bush > Saddam. Now, let's touch on this concept of War. For those who say war was unnecessary. I don't know about you, but War, despite how many lives were ended and scarred because of them, but think about where you are now and what you're doing. This dates back to the days of the Revolutionary War. If wasn't for that, we might still even be under the control of Great Britain. If it wasn't for the civil war, slavery would most likely still be legal. If it wasn't for World War II, Hitler could have conquered more nations and killed more people, and killed more Jewish people. Face it, if it wasn't for war, this world would be in a far worse condition than it is now. Like said before, War is natural. It is inevitable, and we cannot avoid it. No matter how much we want it, you're not going to get World Peace. We cannot all agree. We have our beliefs and we have our grudges and that is how life is, whether you like it or not. For those of you saying this War on Terror in Iraq isn't a war, it is. It's a war. We're fighting insurgency in a country just like we were fighting dictatorship prior. Like any other war, soldiers are dying and civilians are too. It happens, and we cannot avoid it, no matter how much we hate it. And I'll tell you, one side will end up victorious. Whether it takes a few weeks or a few years, either the insurgents or the U.S. will come up victorious. It's a war, just like World War I, and World War II, and the Civil War and the Revolutionary War and the Vietnam War. It's war. And I'll get back briefly on the topic of the thousands of people dying (what Omar mentioned): Yes, both leaders basically allowed these people to die. But think of it this way. Our citizens had a choice. Theirs didn't. Saddam was executed for a reason. We're fighting this war for a reason. And whether you like it or not, they have/are happened/happening. There is nothing you can do to stop it. Such is life. And whether you're ready to accept it or not is your business. Instead of criticizing other people for their opinions, think about whether you're ready to accept the fact that life is like this, and it will never change. And think about other people's feelings and opinions. Either way, we all have to accept life. It's your choice, people. It's your choice.
Id rather see 3000 people dying, than seeing Saddam develope a nuclear weapon to launch it on countries. And it doesnt matter if there were weapons found or not, it was preventive.
Saddam was never going to develop a nuke, I'd be more worried about Iran or North Korea. And may I remind you that the last country to use a nuke was the U.S. and it was used to kill around 300,000 people?
Here's where I disagree: Dateline aired a segment recently which showed many a young man and women registering for the army because they needed money for school. They were promised by the admission officer that they would not be deployed in Iraq (as shown in the hidden camera), and hence joined. Several of them have since died. I question the necessity of their deaths. These men and women, I feel, were decieved into registering due to their circumstances. Yes, they choose (in a very loose sense of the word), but essentially, both Bush and Saddam have arbitrarily and uselessly allowed men and women to die. To those who say there is a difference between allowed (Bush) and command (Saddam), I say that you fail to see the point. A good leader is supposed to protect, first and foremost; neither did. Who cares whether it was allowed and ordered? They made it happen. Chris: I don't understand what you're saying. So we should kill any leaders who have, or could potentially create nuclear weapons? So Roosevelt should have been killed for dropping the bomb in Japan? So Reagan should have been killed for doing business with Saddam way back when? Ditto Todd's remark. The UN is very much concerned with Iran and North Korea because they are promising threats. The Iraq war was a useless one. I pray for those we've lost there, and those still fighting the few floundering militants we've termed "the enemy."
The US is the only country in the history of the world who has used a nuke on another country. It would be very hypocritical for us to try to stop some other country from having one. The US needs to practice what they preach. And, in the process of stopping Iraq from having weapons, we killed a ton of innocent civilians. All we did was kill them before Saddam had a chance to.
You can see why the rest of the world would find that view unfavorable, no? What's to stop them from thinking the same way and offing our officials? Or worse, dropping a bomb on us? Surely you wouldn't want that. The thing is, your view promotes warfare, by acknowledging that all people possible of mass destruction should be eliminated pre-emptively. True, Saddam was entirely corrupt, however, after the Gulf War and Iran/Iraq situation his relationships with our countries have been relatively docile. Now, a decade later, enters the son of George Bush, who lead us during the original war, and he ironically decides to start war with Saddam under grounds of terrorism. Seems kinda fishy, eh? There are other countries harboring terrorism. Why are they not included in this war, and further, if this is a worldwide effort, why are we going it alone? Just doesn't make much sense to me. I'm all for stopping terrorism, but this just seems to be a waste.
Well, im not saying I support the war 100%. Im just saying that it was a good thing to capture Saddam, but hanging went too far. The reason to start the war in Iraq was, in my view, because Bush couldnt find Osama. But thats just my idea of it Maybe i have a different opinion because im not a US citizen.
well i strongly disagree...but then India was a real close friend of Saddam then and so the treatment that i received was probably better than how they would've treated americans