[–] toats [S] 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago (edited ago)
Talk about a show! The US invaded on false premises of WMDs in 2003. In 2004 the death penalty was helpfully reinstated and in 2005 the special court hearing the trial was renamed because Iraq's constitution disallowed the creation of special courts. 2006 saw Saddam's conviction of crimes that happened in 1982 and execution sentence by inexperienced judges who were longtime enemies of his.
[–] NedTaggart 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
How was it a lynching? He was in prison for 3 years, underwent a trial and was sentenced to death.
Now regardless what you think about the Trial process, the fairness of the process or what type of court it might have been, this was not a lynching. A lynching, by definition is an "Extrajudicial Punishment". This does not meet that criteria.
Words have meaning people. Using them incorrectly weakens your argument.
[–] Clips 1 point 1 point 2 points (+2|-1) ago
He definitely was a ruthless leader, even to the innocent. But considering that he kept a lot of terrorist groups in check, and presumably an off-shoot of ISIS, he could've prevented a lot.
One needs a ruthless leader in the Middle East to keep the irrationals in check.
It should've happened after the first Gulf War, in my opinion. If left alive the new government wouldn't be strong enough to fight him and so he would be back in power in a matter of time, so he had to go. That said, if he went after the first Gulf War when the region was on the US's side there would have been less international fallout from the power vacuum.
[–] [deleted] 4 points 3 points 7 points (+7|-4) ago
[–] Slyboots 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
I bet the kurds would disagree with you
[–] toats [S] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
There are so many details that make it seem like a kangaroo court I can't help but agree. Of course, such an opinion attracts many downvoters. :(