Saddam execution

[LaL 418]

nope, i got it perfectly, the poll-maker didnt get what people were saying when the words *multiple choice* came into play. You got the point though, you can choose multiple answers. I was just bein a smartie based on the previous misunderstanding.

I got that you got it!

cheeky jenn

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Oh and for the record Saddam didnt deserve a fair trial because FAIR isnt and has never been in that idiot's vocab!!! However the trial was adhered to under Iraq law not US law. So all the U.S. haters on this thread should learn real quick to be more supportive of the country that they are trying to immigrate to.

OK you didn't like Saddam - who did...?

I see also that you can't reconcile your emotional response towards Saddam with the unemotional/impartial concept of "due process"? Let me ask you this - do you think "due process" is only in Saddam's interest? Saddam was executed for the deaths of 148 people - who do you think will be held to account to the tens of thousands of others he was never held accountable for? Due you seriously think that Saddam, and a half dozen "old men" massacred thousands of Iraqis with their own hands?

As to the question of U.S. haters - YAWN.

Well I expect nothing else from a person with your veiws except a Yawn. Its the only intelligent thing that you have to say.

Those half a dozen 'old men' were quite powerful younger men at the time they ordered the innocent to be murdered. Saddam Hussien has had a hand in 100's of deaths for which there is no recoverable evidence to tie him to.

Im not saying that we can catch every peace of sh it that has killed in Iraq, but he can and is the poster boy for all the killers that acted out his orders.

Im not going to try and get you to agree with me, that wont happen. I will however correct you over the poo that you are speaking in relation to Saddam's conviction and execution.

Then can I ask again why you are seeking "a spectrum" of opinion, if all you are going to do is rubbish the contributions?

The mass murders were the work of the regime - the regime being composed not only of its leaders (at the top) but who's laws and directives were enforced and upheld by various government institutions - the police, the "secret" police, the armed forces and the civilians who collaborated with them. Many many people are responsible for those crimes, not just the leaders.

But that's ok - because you're happy that one old man is dangling from the end of the rope. Does the phrase "big picture" mean anything?

[Fandango 1,439]

Ok, I think that everyone that doesn't understand what people are saying about the the multiple choice thing should go and try to set up a poll. Note the box when it asks you to enter the various choices. If you check that box (enabling multiple choice), the user can select all answers that apply. Such a poll question might be, "Which of the following foods do you like?" The user can choose more than one answer. If that box is not checked, the user can only select one answer. That is what one would normally use for a question with a yes or no answer. Please just go try it!

Sigh.

Jenn, the dude won't get it!

[KarenCee 3]

no, and no.

and for the record, I object to the use of the word retard in this thread.

obviously your a Secular Progressive!

I don't like the use of the word retard either...I am a Special Education teacher and that word has been used to describe students in SPED for years...this is why *I* don't like it. Has nothing at all to do with being secular, progressive, or whatever. You might look over your spelling too, since you appear to enjoy hurling insults back and forth...as a teacher this is one of my pet peeves.

Arguing over the semantics of this thread is a bit childish, don't you think? And don't give me the "he started it" #######.

Edited January 6, 2007 by KarenCee

[nathmc31 0]

no, and no.

and for the record, I object to the use of the word retard in this thread.

obviously your a Secular Progressive!

I don't like the use of the word retard either...I am a Special Education teacher and that word has been used to describe students in SPED for years...this is why *I* don't like it. Has nothing at all to do with being secular, progressive, or whatever. You might look over your spelling too, since you appear to enjoy hurling insults back and forth...as a teacher this is one of my pet peeves.

Arguing over the semantics of this thread is a bit childish, don't you think? And don't give me the "he started it" #######.

it is childish. usually I can spell my intent was to see the different thoughts of VJ members. I have done that with a bit of disagreement to go with that also. everyone on this thread and many others a valuble for their opinions.

cheers

[nathmc31 0]

Are you joking!!!

Multiple choice means there is more than one answer to pick from YOU RETARD. You can only pick one answer.

That may be correct in normal circumstances, but not here. When you create a poll, there is an option to make it multiple choice, as in a person can choose multiple answers to any given question. The "regular" poll restricts you to choosing only one answer.

No you are wrong.

Multiple choice means that there is MULTIPLE answers to choose from. You are to make one choice as your answer. It doesn't matter where the question is asked Multiple choice is Multiple choice.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Are you joking!!!

Multiple choice means there is more than one answer to pick from YOU RETARD. You can only pick one answer.

That may be correct in normal circumstances, but not here. When you create a poll, there is an option to make it multiple choice, as in a person can choose multiple answers to any given question. The "regular" poll restricts you to choosing only one answer.

No you are wrong.

Multiple choice means that there is MULTIPLE answers to choose from. You are to make one choice as your answer. It doesn't matter where the question is asked Multiple choice is Multiple choice.

On VJ, the multiple setting option applies to each question individually. Even in a poll with only one question, if you set it as multiple choice, the software will allow you to select >1 answers. On a poll with > 1 question, if set as multiple choice, the software will allow you to select > 1 answer for each question.

[LaL 418]

now where is that head bonker???

[Alex+R 0]

In an ideal world he should rot in jail, not be executed, yeah I know nobody will agree, I just don't agree with people killing people unless they have no choice

I agree. Lots of people agree with that. Not all of the U.S. is Kansas! (sorry Charles)

And to the OP: #######? Are you high?

[chri'stina 190]

I have been thinking about my opinion on this issue for a week or so. I have been hearing different things on the news, from people I see, out and about etc. From the "oh he died like such a brave man afterall when they taunted him...", to the "hope he rots in hell.." comments.

So how I feel may not be so nice but I'm being honest. I am not 100% pro death penalty, but I am not totally against it either. It's hard for me to decide. I have zero sympathy for Saddam and I am tired of people saying that he died like a real man, because people were taunting him when he died and he yelled at them. So what?

This is where I am not so nice about it. He terrorized so many people and families while he was the leader, and was found guilty of killing many and would have gone to trial over killing many many more. He cared nothing of the families he terrorized, nothing of how they would feel when they heard their loved one was killed. Cared nothing about how someone was killed, if it was extremely painful, etc. Yet because people taunted him before he died, and he didn't fight back supposedly, he is a great man?? Even though I don't really believe in "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" , I do believe that what you reap what you sow. Did he apologize to any families for what he did? I don't know about it, if he did. Did he show mercy when others needed mercy? No. But now just because he didn't argue back with the taunters, he died "like a real man"? Sorry I don't buy it. If he asked for forgiveness from God and from the people he terrorized, that would be different. I don't want anyone to rot in hell, I believe everyone gets the chance to ask for forgiveness. But he was the most defiant idiot in court. For those of you who don't think he received a fair trial, even in the fairest of trials he would still act like an arrogant yelling man during them. Did he ever accept that he did these horrible things? Or did he die as an arrogant man, still denying he did anything wrong? So that's my ramble about it.

Edited January 9, 2007 by stina&suj

[mybackpages 0]

I have been thinking about my opinion on this issue for a week or so. I have been hearing different things on the news, from people I see, out and about etc. From the "oh he died like such a brave man afterall when they taunted him...", to the "hope he rots in hell.." comments.

So how I feel may not be so nice but I'm being honest. I am not 100% pro death penalty, but I am not totally against it either. It's hard for me to decide. I have zero sympathy for Saddam and I am tired of people saying that he died like a real man, because people were taunting him when he died and he yelled at them. So what?

This is where I am not so nice about it. He terrorized so many people and families while he was the leader, and was found guilty of killing many and would have gone to trial over killing many many more. He cared nothing of the families he terrorized, nothing of how they would feel when they heard their loved one was killed. Cared nothing about how someone was killed, if it was extremely painful, etc. Yet because people taunted him before he died, and he didn't fight back supposedly, he is a great man?? Even though I don't really believe in "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" , I do believe that what you reap what you sow. Did he apologize to any families for what he did? I don't know about it, if he did. Did he show mercy when others needed mercy? No. But now just because he didn't argue back with the taunters, he died "like a real man"? Sorry I don't buy it. If he asked for forgiveness from God and from the people he terrorized, that would be different. I don't want anyone to rot in hell, I believe everyone gets the chance to ask for forgiveness. But he was the most defiant idiot in court. For those of you who don't think he received a fair trial, even in the fairest of trials he would still act like an arrogant yelling man during them. Did he ever accept that he did these horrible things? Or did he die as an arrogant man, still denying he did anything wrong? So that's my ramble about it.

I think he went to his death as an arrogant man. His final words- "God is Great" could be seen as an admission that he is powerless, but I suspect it was a defiant act to those tauting him as if to say "I am right". just my impression though.

The problem as i see it is that the taunters made it look less like an act of justice and more an act of vengence.

[chri'stina 190]

I have been thinking about my opinion on this issue for a week or so. I have been hearing different things on the news, from people I see, out and about etc. From the "oh he died like such a brave man afterall when they taunted him...", to the "hope he rots in hell.." comments.

So how I feel may not be so nice but I'm being honest. I am not 100% pro death penalty, but I am not totally against it either. It's hard for me to decide. I have zero sympathy for Saddam and I am tired of people saying that he died like a real man, because people were taunting him when he died and he yelled at them. So what?

This is where I am not so nice about it. He terrorized so many people and families while he was the leader, and was found guilty of killing many and would have gone to trial over killing many many more. He cared nothing of the families he terrorized, nothing of how they would feel when they heard their loved one was killed. Cared nothing about how someone was killed, if it was extremely painful, etc. Yet because people taunted him before he died, and he didn't fight back supposedly, he is a great man?? Even though I don't really believe in "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" , I do believe that what you reap what you sow. Did he apologize to any families for what he did? I don't know about it, if he did. Did he show mercy when others needed mercy? No. But now just because he didn't argue back with the taunters, he died "like a real man"? Sorry I don't buy it. If he asked for forgiveness from God and from the people he terrorized, that would be different. I don't want anyone to rot in hell, I believe everyone gets the chance to ask for forgiveness. But he was the most defiant idiot in court. For those of you who don't think he received a fair trial, even in the fairest of trials he would still act like an arrogant yelling man during them. Did he ever accept that he did these horrible things? Or did he die as an arrogant man, still denying he did anything wrong? So that's my ramble about it.

I think he went to his death as an arrogant man. His final words- "God is Great" could be seen as an admission that he is powerless, but I suspect it was a defiant act to those tauting him as if to say "I am right". just my impression though.

The problem as i see it is that the taunters made it look less like an act of justice and more an act of vengence.

I agree on that point. But, he still would have died either way.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I have been thinking about my opinion on this issue for a week or so. I have been hearing different things on the news, from people I see, out and about etc. From the "oh he died like such a brave man afterall when they taunted him...", to the "hope he rots in hell.." comments.

So how I feel may not be so nice but I'm being honest. I am not 100% pro death penalty, but I am not totally against it either. It's hard for me to decide. I have zero sympathy for Saddam and I am tired of people saying that he died like a real man, because people were taunting him when he died and he yelled at them. So what?

This is where I am not so nice about it. He terrorized so many people and families while he was the leader, and was found guilty of killing many and would have gone to trial over killing many many more. He cared nothing of the families he terrorized, nothing of how they would feel when they heard their loved one was killed. Cared nothing about how someone was killed, if it was extremely painful, etc. Yet because people taunted him before he died, and he didn't fight back supposedly, he is a great man?? Even though I don't really believe in "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" , I do believe that what you reap what you sow. Did he apologize to any families for what he did? I don't know about it, if he did. Did he show mercy when others needed mercy? No. But now just because he didn't argue back with the taunters, he died "like a real man"? Sorry I don't buy it. If he asked for forgiveness from God and from the people he terrorized, that would be different. I don't want anyone to rot in hell, I believe everyone gets the chance to ask for forgiveness. But he was the most defiant idiot in court. For those of you who don't think he received a fair trial, even in the fairest of trials he would still act like an arrogant yelling man during them. Did he ever accept that he did these horrible things? Or did he die as an arrogant man, still denying he did anything wrong? So that's my ramble about it.

I think he went to his death as an arrogant man. His final words- "God is Great" could be seen as an admission that he is powerless, but I suspect it was a defiant act to those tauting him as if to say "I am right". just my impression though.

The problem as i see it is that the taunters made it look less like an act of justice and more an act of vengence.

Exactly the point - the taunting made Saddam look dignified, and the government releasing an official tape with no sound makes it look like they covered it up.

Saddam probably should have been executed but only after a fair trial - in which his guilt for all the crimes was established. Incidentally, the court dropped the charges that were pending against him in the second trial. On paper at least - what does that suggest? That he didn't do it? That he wasn't involved....? I don't think either of us believes that.

The only objection I have to this is that a flawed trial will inevitably make it much more difficult to prosecute other members of the regime who actually carried out the atrocities. Anecdotal information seems to suggest that most of the people who were in place at the grass roots level under Saddam are now back in their old jobs. behaving pretty much as before, albeit under the auspices of a new regime, which has yet to prove itself.

I saw an interview with the late Frank Herbert the other week, where he said that he didn't entirely believe in the adage 'power corrupts' but rather he thought that 'power attracts the already corrupt'. It remains to be seen I think whether the new 'democratic' regime of Iraq will prove to be beneficial both to the Iraqi people and to the interests of the West as a whole or whether they will pursue policies of 'self-interest'.