Friday, December 29, 2006

Death by hanging

Saddam Hussein is to be hung tonight at 10 PM EST. There are a lot of things about this that deserve discussion:

1. He was an evil man and I think he should be put to death.
2. I like hanging as a punishment. One of the positive effects of punishment should be
deterrence. I think that capital punishment should be VISIBLE to the public.
3. It will be interesting to see what happens to the levels of violence in Iraq after this. I
certainly hope that there is not a surge in violence because I do not want to see more of our
soldiers killed. I am afraid there will be a rather large surge in violence.
4. It disturbs me a great deal that he will stay in US custody until a few minutes before the
execution. This shows me that we do not trust the Iraqi government to do something as
simple as having Hussein in their custody for ANY length of time... This is scary folks.

Read the story here:
<http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/12/29/D8MAQ1U82.html>

Mike Sylvester

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

I can't think of a more deserving punishment or a more deserving guy.

I often used to think of the removal and elimination of Saddam Hussein as a parallel of what we should have done to Hitler after his annexation of Czechoslovakia in 1938. Had Chamberlain taken his manhood off the shelf and killed the head of the snake when it was weaker WWII may have looked much different....but... Had we removed Hitler early what would have taken his place. Is it possible that Brittan would have been mired in a war with Germany for a long time and another, more dangerous power such as a Stalin lead Soviet Union with an untapped war machine taken continental Europe? We took out Saddam early and, like Hitler he is (soon to be was) an evil man... but we have created and ignored other powers (Iran) that, in the future will prove to be much more dangerous.

John Good said...

Jon Olinger said...
I can't think of a more deserving punishment or a more deserving guy.


What about Bush? How many thousands of Americans and Iraqis are dead due to HIS hand?

Anonymous said...

John,

..None...Duhhhh

Sorry but wacko, crackpot, leftwing arguments really arent worth much more than that.

Tim Zank said...

Jon, in r/e John...that hysterical mindset is really indicative of the lack of common sense so prevalent on the left side of the aisle. Those are the kinds of ridiculous statements made by the Cynthia Mckinneys of the world. I honestly don't think John and his friends have any idea how ridiculous they sound. It's one thing to be passionate about your cause, it's quite another to be completely out of touch with reality and common sense. I don't mean that in a condescending way either, but most
people (I would hope) would recognize there are no parallels which can be drawn between any U.S. President in our history and the likes of Saddam, Pol Pot, and the like. It boggles the mind.

LP Mike Sylvester said...

I do not like President Bush at all; that being said, there is no possible way you can compare President Bush to Saddam Hussein.

It is not a fair comparison at all...

Mike Sylvester

Anonymous said...

John must be so consumed with hate toward the Republican Administration that it has eliminated his ability to have cognitive thought. I hated Bill Clinton as president and I would fight tooth and nail to keep his wife out of office, but I do not compare them to the likes of Hitler, Saddam, Pol Pot.etc...

It is such an ignorantly stupid statement it boggles the mind. But it does give insight to the level of ignorance that permeates the left. They are unable to hold a meaningful conversation due to their irrational hatred of Bush.

Anonymous said...

John Good is proof that 'wingnut' applies to the left every bit as much as it does to the right.

Robert Enders said...

John Good,

At worst, Bush, Senator Clinton, Senator Bayh, and Senator Kerry are guilty of negligence. Bush will NEVER be impeached, because he did not do anything without the cooperation of many Democratic congresspersons.

Was the war a good idea? Who knows? Wars are unpredictable, and it is arrogant for anyone to assume that either victory or defeat is assured.

The difference between Bush and Saddam is that Bush was elected in a legal (though argueably flawed) election, then re-elected four years later by a majority of the voting population. Saddam aquired and held on to power through force and brutality. If Bush is guilty of a capital crime, what fate did you have in mind for those who voted for him?

Anonymous said...

Good point Robert, Mr. Good and the wacko left is so blinded by "Bushophobia" that the freedom we enjoy here is completely taken for granted. A simple question to ask is what world would be better to live in.. One under Bush leadership, or one under Saddam leadership.. Dickheads like Mr. Good would say at best there is no difference.. But how many state sanctioned rapes have we had this year in America. How many mass graves were dug this year in the U.S. under the Bush admistration..Etc... The argument is blatantly ignorant.

Charlotte A. Weybright said...

Robert - on your statement about Bush being re-elected by a majority of the voting population, Gore received the majority of the voting population's votes in 2000. However, it was to no avail because the electoral college is what determines the ultimate winner.

The electoral votes in 2004 just happened to align with the actual majority vote - in 2000 they did not.

The 2000 election was one of the four times (I believe) in our history when the winner of the majority vote did not win the election.

As to Saddam Hussein's death by hanging, he is not the only despot and/or tyrant in the world who needs to be brought to justice.

However, we do not seem to be interested in any more than in a passing way in too many other parts of the world where the same kind of tyrant rules. Bush may makes speeches and statements about other dictators, but he won't go after them in the same manner he pursued Hussein.

In fact, if you look at Parade's Top 10 dictators of 2006 (published in January of 2006), you will not find us involved in the representative countries in the way we have been involved in Iraq.

Yet, many of the same violations have occurred in those listed countries. I am sure many out there will insist that it is Sadaam's pursuit of nuclear weapons and his cruelty to his people that made him the "one" to go after.

Sorry, I don't buy that excuse. I believe Bush had an agenda for the Middle East and intended to focus on Hussein whether or not it met with approval from anyone and no matter the human and monetary costs to Americans, to Iraqis, and to the Middle East.