While the war in Iraq clearly turned out to be a mistake, Saddam was an evil tyrant who deserved to die.
Consequentialist Libertarian said 02/21, 11:26 PM
This is not a debate on the justification for Iraq; it is about Saddam's character.
Saddam's henchmen killed an average of 50,000 civilians a year.
Women were routinely raped infront of their husbands, which were then in turn, tortured and/or murdered infront of their wives
Saddam had 40 of his relatives murdered
Saddam killed some 30,000 people with chemical weapons between '83 and '88
Human Rights Watch estimates that Saddam's 1987-1988 campaign of terror against the Kurds killed at least 50,000 and possibly as many as 100,000 Kurds
"Over the past five years, 400,000 Iraqi children under the age of five died of malnutrition and disease, preventively, but died because of the nature of the regime under which they are living." (Prime Minister Tony Blair, March 27, 2003)
He funded terrorism. He gave $15,000 to the families of every single suicide bomber & an extra $10,000 for every civilian killed / he has also been linked to the bombing of the Kobar towers
He had invaded neighbors on several occasions, the two most popular instances being the Iran-Iraq War & the invasion of Kuwait which led to desert shield which led to desert storm
The list goes on...
GarCon said 02/21, 11:39 PM
I don't think it's fair to say that anyone deserves to die. You might point to all of those deaths that Hussein was responsible for on one hand, but to claim he deserved the same fate is something barbaric in itself. Exacting vengance never solves anything. Can you tell me that the death of that man is going to make right what he did wrong?
600,000 Iraqis are dead now. Would you just as soon say that George Bush deserved to die? President Bush is a man who has done business with Pakistan, Communist China, and Uzbekistan. Do you think he deserves the noose as well?
If anything, Saddam deserved to be in a jail cell waiting painfully for his death. His demise is nothing to be proud of. It shows how Iraqi society has become the thing it feared, a brutal monster on the same level with that former dictator. Everyone deserves their life, for it is a human right. No one, no matter how sinister deserves to lose that.
Consequentialist Libertarian said 02/21, 11:57 PM
Iraqis would have never settled for less than death. They would have constantly worried that he would still have influence and control over their lives. In normal circumstances I oppose the death penalty, as I do not believe it makes people suffer enough, but in this case it was absolutely necessary.
Bush is not responsible for the 600,000 dead Iraqis; insurgents and religious extremist groups are. Bush made a clear mistake by going into Iraq, but that doesn't support your claim. He, nor our military killed those 600,000. Obviously there are always going to be civilian deaths, but the vast majority of of those have resulted from IEDs, and sectarian fighting.
Sounds like somebody is a flower child. Clearly your heart is in the right place, but not your mind. Iraqis do not feel that he deserved to live. By imposing your beliefs on Iraq, you are essentially being ethnocentric. That is a logical fallacy. You cannot impose your will on the Iraqi citizenry. They sentenced him to death; that is what he deserved.
GarCon said 02/22, 12:05 AM
Just because the Iraqis would have never settled for less than death does not make what happened to him wrong. Murder is simply evil, no matter how popular it is.
Bush is responsible for 600,000 Iraqis dead. He invaded the country and he did a poor job of keeping the peace, therefore his actions lead to that consequence. He's still the same reckless drunk driver, 30 years after the fact.
It is interesting for you to criticize me for wanting to impose my beliefs on Iraq. You seem like some one who clearly has no problem with the Jewish neoconservative cabal in the White House spreading their influence into every nook and cranny of the Middle East. Any wrong is right as long as it's done under the banne of Uncle Sam waiving flag wiht the Star of David on it.
Consequentialist Libertarian said 02/22, 12:19 AM
Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of another human being. His death was sanctioned by the Iraqi courts, therefore your assertion that his execution was unlawful, is bunk.
Once again, Bush did not kill 600,000 Iraqis. Please show me where he personally pulled the trigger, or even ordered their deaths for that matter. I hardly see how the two are related.
I am actually a Libertarian. I believe in diplomacy first. I conceded before the debate that the Iraq war was a mistake; so please explain how you have concluded that I am a proponent of the "Jewish neoconservative cabal". I would disagree with the assertion that "any wrong is right...". The US has committed several atrocites world-wide; but that is not the debate at hand. Please get on topic, or exit the debate entirely.
GarCon said 02/22, 12:24 AM
That's your definition of murder, not mine. I see murder as the destruction of any human life.
Bush pulled the trigger by listening to Zionists/New Nazis like Perl, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Krauthammer, and Lieberman. Keep dancing around the issue if you like. You're denying that he pulled the trigger by buying into the idea that the Zionists can do no wrong. I guess the invasion of Iraq wasn't murder. It was just widespread involuntary manslaughter. I suppose that makes it a lot better.
You sir are nothing more than just another indirect agent of Israel, trying to sweep the wrongs done by this administration under the carpet.
Comments
Add Your Comment
Wow, you are an ignoramus. I specifically said this was not a debate on Iraq. Jesus **** christ, people are ignorant. If you had any common sense, you would resind your vote for him. Are you illiterate? Wow. Clearly you did not read my post, but I conceded the fact that it was a mistake from the start. THE DEBATE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT!!!
Consequentialist Libertarian | 02/21/08
Report Offensive Comment
That debate has been had too many times. I was trying to do something new. If u want to debate the lack of justification for Iraq, then start a new debate; this is not the right one for you.
Consequentialist Libertarian | 02/22/08
Report Offensive Comment
This is all about justifying Iraq. Jews like you will never get that.
GarCon | 02/22/08
Report Offensive Comment
I was generally with GarCon's arguments: I'm never for capital punishment, as it is only prolonging the cycle of killing, and I didn't support the Iraq invasion to begin with. Then the "Zionist" crap started falling out, and my brain shut off immediately. Do everyone a favor, Gar: go break break with Mel Gibson and stay out of policy debates. You give the anti-war movement a bad face.
Austhus | 02/22/08
Report Offensive Comment
I voted for Libertarian on this one, that is, on the argument that Saddam deserved to die. But I do feel Bush is responsible for the deaths of several hundred thousand Iraqi civilians. The military strategy in Iraq was poorly executed. We bombed out the countries infrastructure, leaving the country crippled beyond belief. We've made no efforts to rebuild said infrastructure. Our presence there has escalated sectarian violence beyond belief.
papabear | 02/22/08
Report Offensive Comment
Throughout the 20th Century, there have been several dictators who are largely responsible or at least held responsible for the deaths of tens, hundreds, thousands, and millions (Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Pinochet, and Saddam Hussein immediately come to mind). And while these individuals may not have always pulled the trigger directly (in some cases they did), their policies and administration nevertheless led to the deaths of many innocent people. What is interesting is the level with which we assume responsibility to the leader. Whether it was 600,000 or 100,000 Iraqi people dead, these figures are inconsequential to the fact that their deaths are the product or by-product of the war in Iraq. I am not suggesting the Bush directly pulled the trigger for all these deaths nor am I defending the actions of the dictators mentioned earlier. At the very least, we can agree that there is a disparity between the responsibility accorded to the President of the United States and the leader of a third world country such as Iraq, Uganda, Chile, etc. Yes, Saddam Hussein is responsible for several well-documented atrocities and I personally believe should not only have been removed from power but also made to suffer dearly for his crimes. But if the United States wishes to assume the role of the leader of the free world and bastion for democratic forward and progressive thinking, it must apply and expect the same standards to others that it expects of itself. Otherwise, we look as though we are only willing to support democratic principles so long as they are consistent with our more cursory needs.
Nikolai | 02/22/08
Report Offensive Comment
Garcon? Dude, you so could have argued well on this. The Bush comment had me going for a bit, but then all the stuff about religion? Really you sound like a well-read debator, but when you fall to name-calling its really just bad propaganda. This site is for good argument. You should have come back with a "death is too good for him" defense. I mean, a lot of people hate this guy. I believe the score would have been a great deal closer if you had tried this approach.
Eaglevision | 02/23/08
Report Offensive CommentPost A Comment
Please keep it clean. Bad words will get filtered, and offensive comments will be removed.
CNN TOP POLITICAL STORIES
TOP STORIES on TIME.COM
TIME PHOTO ESSAYS
Israeli Soldiers Sweep Into Gaza
IDF tanks and infantry launch a ground offensive in the Palestinian enclave
(Uriel Sinai / Getty)
The Science of Snowflakes
Caltech physics professor Kenneth G. Libbrecht has turned his passion for the study of ice crystals into an art form. In his books and website, Snowcrystals.com, he breaks down some of the basics behind these miniature miracles of nature
(Kenneth G. Libbrecht)
So why did W not just send in the Green Berets, Seals and Special Forces? So many American lives lost and futures crippled. All for W's ego to complete what his Daddy didn't. There are more male hormones in Washington in a single day that a month of Spring Breaks in Florida! Yes, Saddam deserved to go, but have you read the Human Rights Watch postings about the USA's offenses nationally and internationally? http://www.hrw.org/doc/?t=usa Who should die for permitting those? Allow me to paraphrase your lead sentence: "This is not a debate on the justification for USA; it is about ****'s character." Shoulda stayed exclusively in Afganistan. The real monster (Osama bin Laden) would be dead by now.
Brian PG | 02/21/08
Report Offensive Comment