Saddam To Be Hanged Within 30 Days

[boojumsnark25]

Hitler was in jail before he gained power, and Vladimir Lenin was put into exhile before he gained the majority of his power.


Down and out isn't always so. Although I don't agree with the hanging sentence completly, I defintly see reasons for it, and against it.

There's a huge difference between being in jail before power and being thrown in jail, breaking out, and then regaining power...

the celebratory gunfire was pretty rampant, and from what i've read/seen/been told by people in Iraq, not too many people were sad about it...

[knapplc]

Hitler was in jail before he gained power, and Vladimir Lenin was put into exhile before he gained the majority of his power.


Down and out isn't always so. Although I don't agree with the hanging sentence completly, I defintly see reasons for it, and against it.

There's a huge difference between being in jail before power and being thrown in jail, breaking out, and then regaining power...

the celebratory gunfire was pretty rampant, and from what i've read/seen/been told by people in Iraq, not too many people were sad about it...

Your assumptions - and that's all they are - are not born out by history. That's the bottom line.

[aaawall91]

Well it is kind of similar, he was thrown in jail for TREASON.

[boojumsnark25]

Hitler was in jail before he gained power, and Vladimir Lenin was put into exhile before he gained the majority of his power.


Down and out isn't always so. Although I don't agree with the hanging sentence completly, I defintly see reasons for it, and against it.

There's a huge difference between being in jail before power and being thrown in jail, breaking out, and then regaining power...

the celebratory gunfire was pretty rampant, and from what i've read/seen/been told by people in Iraq, not too many people were sad about it...

Your assumptions - and that's all they are - are not born out by history. That's the bottom line.

Haha, are you serious with that? History is not the "bottom line". History, yes, does repeat itself sometimes, but it is not a 100% guaranteed foreshadowing of what's going to happen. To say that history is always the future's prophet is ridiculous.

History is a great reflector, but just because it happens in history does not mean it's bound to happen again

Think about it; someone used Hitler as an example. He was jailed for conspiracy to commit treason; not really something that will get the Germans mad at you. He received favorable treatment from the people guarding him and got lots of fan letters during his stay in jail. He was still popular.

Now let's look at Saddam. Everyone hated him and wanted him out of power, but no one dared say a word because he would simply kill you. He never had the people's popularity, the people pretended to like him to stay alive. Sure, he had his followers, and still does, but they are the minority. He never had the people's support and would not have been popular in jail, as Hitler was.

The trouble with using history as an example is that the circumstances have to be somewhat similar. Hitler and Saddam were both ousted dictators with ugly facial hair. That's about where the comparison ends.

I dare say that if Hitler had not killed himself, had been ousted, and tried to return to power, he would not have made it. The world had been finally made aware of his atrocities, which they ignored during his rise to power. They would have put a stop to it.

[knapplc]

Haha, are you serious with that?

Sure am. I'm not going to go to war over this; all I'm saying is that you're making it a little more simplistic than it really is by saying that there's no way Saddam could have come back to power in Iraq.

Let's say the US leaves Iraq and Saddam is still alive in jail. He gets busted out (which has just recently happened), his supporters (of which there are many) arm themselves (kinda like they're doing now), they fight a guerrilla battle until they gain the upper hand (kinda like they're doing now), and over the course of one, two, maybe five years they put him back in the palace.

Look at Afghanistan. It's happening there right now, or at least the Taliban are trying to make it happen. Don't disregard it simply because it seems far-fetched. It happened with Napoleon, it's possibly happening in Afghanistan and it could happen in Iraq.

[boojumsnark25]

Haha, are you serious with that?

Sure am. I'm not going to go to war over this; all I'm saying is that you're making it a little more simplistic than it really is by saying that there's no way Saddam could have come back to power in Iraq.

Let's say the US leaves Iraq and Saddam is still alive in jail. He gets busted out (which has just recently happened), his supporters (of which there are many) arm themselves (kinda like they're doing now), they fight a guerrilla battle until they gain the upper hand (kinda like they're doing now), and over the course of one, two, maybe five years they put him back in the palace.

Look at Afghanistan. It's happening there right now, or at least the Taliban are trying to make it happen. Don't disregard it simply because it seems far-fetched. It happened with Napoleon, it's possibly happening in Afghanistan and it could happen in Iraq.

OK, I guess I don't buy into that whole "history repeats itself" thing. I can think of too many differences between the Napoleonic era and the modern era.

Besides...to disprove your theory, all I have to do is provide one example of a ruler who was ousted from power, but not put to death, and who never returned to power. Mussolini, if I'm not mistaken, fits that bill. So if history repeats itself, it could repeat in either direction, right? So how can you be so sure of the fact it would repeat in the direction you say it would?

[boojumsnark25]

he gets busted out (which has just recently happened)

Not sure where you're coming from with this. Did someone in Iraq get busted out or something?

[knapplc]

Haha, are you serious with that?

Sure am. I'm not going to go to war over this; all I'm saying is that you're making it a little more simplistic than it really is by saying that there's no way Saddam could have come back to power in Iraq.

Let's say the US leaves Iraq and Saddam is still alive in jail. He gets busted out (which has just recently happened), his supporters (of which there are many) arm themselves (kinda like they're doing now), they fight a guerrilla battle until they gain the upper hand (kinda like they're doing now), and over the course of one, two, maybe five years they put him back in the palace.

Look at Afghanistan. It's happening there right now, or at least the Taliban are trying to make it happen. Don't disregard it simply because it seems far-fetched. It happened with Napoleon, it's possibly happening in Afghanistan and it could happen in Iraq.

OK, I guess I don't buy into that whole "history repeats itself" thing. I can think of too many differences between the Napoleonic era and the modern era.

Besides...to disprove your theory, all I have to do is provide one example of a ruler who was ousted from power, but not put to death, and who never returned to power. Mussolini, if I'm not mistaken, fits that bill. So if history repeats itself, it could repeat in either direction, right? So how can you be so sure of the fact it would repeat in the direction you say it would?

So you're arguing with me because you think I think that if they didn't kill Saddam he WOULD come back to power? Of course I'm not saying that. And finding one or two examples of where it did happen or did not happen neither proves nor disproves anything. All I'm saying, and you'd have to agree, is that it's POSSIBLE it could happen. That's all I'm talking about.

Nothing is absolute and I wouldn't pretend it to be.

[joelamosobadiah]

Haha, are you serious with that?

Sure am. I'm not going to go to war over this; all I'm saying is that you're making it a little more simplistic than it really is by saying that there's no way Saddam could have come back to power in Iraq.

Let's say the US leaves Iraq and Saddam is still alive in jail. He gets busted out (which has just recently happened), his supporters (of which there are many) arm themselves (kinda like they're doing now), they fight a guerrilla battle until they gain the upper hand (kinda like they're doing now), and over the course of one, two, maybe five years they put him back in the palace.

Look at Afghanistan. It's happening there right now, or at least the Taliban are trying to make it happen. Don't disregard it simply because it seems far-fetched. It happened with Napoleon, it's possibly happening in Afghanistan and it could happen in Iraq.

OK, I guess I don't buy into that whole "history repeats itself" thing. I can think of too many differences between the Napoleonic era and the modern era.

Besides...to disprove your theory, all I have to do is provide one example of a ruler who was ousted from power, but not put to death, and who never returned to power. Mussolini, if I'm not mistaken, fits that bill. So if history repeats itself, it could repeat in either direction, right? So how can you be so sure of the fact it would repeat in the direction you say it would?

Sorry to butt in here, but I have something to add. Both of you have very good points, but my thought here is that is better to be safe than sorry. The penalty for murder is death. That is not up to debate. It is an acceptable penalty. Having said that, why shouldn't we kill the guy. It is what he deserved. He earned the right to be put to death by his actions. There is a possibility that if we let him get off without the death penalty, we look back at this in ten, fifteen years and regret that decision. Even you, booj, admit that is a possibility. You can't PROVE that something won't happen, just as we can't prove that something WILL. however, it is better to be safe and to remove all possibility than be sorry and let the man possibly get back into power. There is NO way that we come back later and say, "Oh, look, that was the wrong guy...he didn't really kill anybody." He was guilty, and we removed the threat.

*end rant*

[boojumsnark25]

Haha, are you serious with that?

Sure am. I'm not going to go to war over this; all I'm saying is that you're making it a little more simplistic than it really is by saying that there's no way Saddam could have come back to power in Iraq.

Let's say the US leaves Iraq and Saddam is still alive in jail. He gets busted out (which has just recently happened), his supporters (of which there are many) arm themselves (kinda like they're doing now), they fight a guerrilla battle until they gain the upper hand (kinda like they're doing now), and over the course of one, two, maybe five years they put him back in the palace.

Look at Afghanistan. It's happening there right now, or at least the Taliban are trying to make it happen. Don't disregard it simply because it seems far-fetched. It happened with Napoleon, it's possibly happening in Afghanistan and it could happen in Iraq.

OK, I guess I don't buy into that whole "history repeats itself" thing. I can think of too many differences between the Napoleonic era and the modern era.

Besides...to disprove your theory, all I have to do is provide one example of a ruler who was ousted from power, but not put to death, and who never returned to power. Mussolini, if I'm not mistaken, fits that bill. So if history repeats itself, it could repeat in either direction, right? So how can you be so sure of the fact it would repeat in the direction you say it would?

Sorry to butt in here, but I have something to add. Both of you have very good points, but my thought here is that is better to be safe than sorry. The penalty for murder is death. That is not up to debate. It is an acceptable penalty. Having said that, why shouldn't we kill the guy. It is what he deserved. He earned the right to be put to death by his actions. There is a possibility that if we let him get off without the death penalty, we look back at this in ten, fifteen years and regret that decision. Even you, booj, admit that is a possibility. You can't PROVE that something won't happen, just as we can't prove that something WILL. however, it is better to be safe and to remove all possibility than be sorry and let the man possibly get back into power. There is NO way that we come back later and say, "Oh, look, that was the wrong guy...he didn't really kill anybody." He was guilty, and we removed the threat.

*end rant*

but this whole thing is about how I don't believe in the death penalty for anyone.

You're right though, there are good points on both sides

Knapp, I'm not saying that you are 100% sure he would come back to power. I'm not 0% sure that he would come back to power. The whole discussion started over the fact that I feel that the death penalty is wrong for anyone, regardless of how bad a man he is. How that transferred over to whether or not Saddam would come back to power, I'm not sure.