You can login if you already have an account or register by clicking the button below.
Registering is free and all you need is a username and password. We never ask you for your e-mail.
[–]Cid0 points
9 points
9 points
(+9|-0)
ago
(edited ago)
I think it was the most expensive show ever preformed. Billion of dollars, countless hours of political theatrics, and thousands of lives lost to bring us that finale and none of it meant shit.
[–]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.
I also can't comment on his character but the circumstances around the invasion, trial, and execution are so sketchy I can't help but compare it to a lynching.
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.
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.
[–]crazyjuan0 points
0 points
0 points
(+0|-0)
ago
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.
Sort: Top
[–] Cid 0 points 9 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago (edited ago)
I think it was the most expensive show ever preformed. Billion of dollars, countless hours of political theatrics, and thousands of lives lost to bring us that finale and none of it meant shit.
[–] 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.
[–] CANCEL-CAT-FACTS 0 points 4 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago
Footage was too blurry.
[–] [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. :(
[–] G4 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
It happened. I didn't know the guy personally so I don't have strong feelings one way or the other
[–] dirt-nap 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Beige alert!
[–] toats [S] ago
I also can't comment on his character but the circumstances around the invasion, trial, and execution are so sketchy I can't help but compare it to a lynching.
[–] 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.
[–] G4 ago
I don't know a damn thing about the situation, or really who or what he did other than the hanging itself
[–] 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.
[–] Vladimir_Komarov 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
I don't think he was able to sell Iraqi oil for non-american currency after this, so petro-dollar success?
[–] Clips 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
Wasn't that one of the reasons he was executed for? (No one talks about it.)
[–] brokenfingers 0 points 2 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago
If I remember correctly he wanted to sell oil in euros instead of dollars.
[–] arrggg ago
That's what happens when you attempt to create a silver/gold based currency to replace the dollar.
You either get hung, or get a giant bowie knife in your ass like Gadaffi. The hanging was more civilized.
[–] crazyjuan ago
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.