Saddam got pwned (dead)
 

So, it's happened. Saddam got hanged. Not exactly the best way to die.

So, what do you guys think of this?

I think he got what he deserved, only maybe they could've killed him in a better way. Maybe injection or the electric chair.

I would much prefer a fight to the death between him and Nutmadinejad. The winner gets to fight Noam Chomsky.

The fact that is was publicised live was the only part that disturbed me.

Otherwise huzzah, a few less Saddam jokes.

What color are Saddam's undergarments?



Brown.

...his actual hanging wasn't released to the public

But good riddance

Oh, bye bye Saddam bitch, glad yer gone! :p I hate ya! :|

Pretty much what everyone else said.

Hanging if it’s done properly is humane, because it instantly breaks the neck, but if it’s not done properly it just causes slow strangulation and that’s not humane.

I honestly don't know whether it's a good or bad thing. I do believe the hanging was rather inhumane, a life sentence in prison would have been better.

Alcar...

Prison would have tortured him... Damn, he should have gone there! They should have sent him there and tortured him...

And firing biological weapons on a country and making thousands of people's faces fall off IS a humane thing to do?

All this 'humane or not humane' bullshit has to go, the guy got what he deserved end of story. What goes around comes around.

Tiger

Havoc has a point there. An eye for an eye (Of course, he was supposed to have a few thousand eyes if this rule applied).

If they put him in prison for life, some people would have found a way around that, he would have been cleared and we would arrive to where it started.

Well, I guess I'm glad he's dead. He got what he deserved.

Umm... yeah. Not much more to say I guess.

He was killed in a sham trial. So much more could have been learned if he was properly put before the I.C.C., the world court, etc. He got convicted for the Dujail killings, whose numbers were inflated and which were performed with overseas aid. I really wish he would have started dropping dimes about Russky and American involvement in his rise to power from the late 50s to mid 90s. He got jobs, money, recon, arms sales, the whole nine ****ing yards.
Its a shame dead men can't tell tales.

It was a completely unnecessary and stupid thing to do. It was short-sighted and naive.

First off, by killing him, he was automatically made martyr for the pro-Saddam factions. This will make them even more resistant to influences from the outside world and further strengthen their cause, at least on a religious level.

Second, like Statikk mentioned, he was only convicted for one of many atrocities. No word was mentioned about any of the executions he had ordered, let alone the slaughter of Kurds using biological weapons. I think that very few people who are relatives of the victims can find support in the fact that he's dead, especially since he kind of "got away" with what he did, from a legal point of view.

Third, he got the easy way out. He wanted to die. They just gave him what he wanted the most - a fast and clean one-way ticket out of the mess he had created. Sure, it's arguable that he was of very little use to the Coalition let alone the Iraqii government, but from a distanced point of view, it would've been better off keeping him alive. Now, as he was hanged, he was able to reach out to everyone and point out his cause. He was given the benfit of even more attention than he had been given when he was alive. If he were kept imprisoned for the rest of his life, it would've been alot harder on him and people wouldn't pay as much attention to him.

Like I said, a very hastened and naive solution to the problem.

Those of you saying that it's good riddance really need to reconsider some of this. This will definitely escalate the violence furthermore in Iraq, making it even harder for its population. Come on, don't be blunt.

Well, yes, I heard that there already have been threats of blowing up a plane or something (I'm not sure what it was) because of the execution. The followers will carry on, it seems.

Maybe they hanged him in belief of weakening these factions, but it might turn out the other way around.

Yeah, and the execution wasn't carried out at the proper time and place by uniformed outsiders. It was rushed and done "extrajudiciously" by Moqtada al Sadr militiamen, the very people the U.S. army is now fighting against. The afterparty was awesome, though. Drunken "Pin the cordless drill on the temple!" was a blast.

QFT. Death is not enough, and besides, now everyone who preferred him is going to take it out on everyone.

Ah, Statikk, I was eager to hear your interesting opinions on this, knowing you and I sit at opposite sides of the fence. What exactly makes you think it was a sham trial, and what makes you think that the corrupt, dictator appeasing "oil for dictators banquets" UN would be better suited to handling this? Or the heavily flawed ICC? I'm with Havoc on this.

On a lighter note:

Rock, paper, Saddam!

How about the fact that they just hanged him without even prosecuting him for everything he's done? Is that sham enough for you? It sure as hell is to me, the country doesn't seem to be headed towards becoming a "democracy", now is it?

Yeah, sure, what goes around comes around - to the people of Iraq that is, the folks who are alive and who have to put up with all the shit he left behind. Indeed, very bright.

ROCK!

Two papers...

LMAO

---

Edit:

The USA already prosecuted him but even still, the entire world KNOWS what happened. What is a lawer going to ask him?

"Mister Hussein, isn't it true that you ordered the launch of biochemical weapons on Iran 15 years ago?"

"No, I deny, I never ordered that."

"Oh, okay..."

*He denies, he goes free, there we are.*

There was never any doubt about him being guilty so I don't ever get why a trail was needed in the first place.

As for the people of Iraq, they live their life as they want. They have been doing so for decades so I think they can manage for another few decades or so. It's is NON of our business to tell a country which has been around for MUCH longer then any of us and that specifically goes for the US. The US is 200 years old, the entire middle east has been a populated area for over 2000 years. So like I said, non of our bussiness, let them decide how to lead their own country.

Tiger

I think it was quite important for the families of the victims, at least that was probably the only way they would ever get any kind of reconciliation. To actually bring him to justice and make it clear to him, not so much the rest of the world, what he had done.

Wrong. There's an on-going war there if you haven't already noticed that. You can't just live life "as you want" then. You live by what you get and the opportunites you are given. And please, don't try and convince me that they are in a position to "create their own opportunities and future". Also, for what it's worth, I don't really believe they've been able to live by those standards for the past decade or so, considering the fact that Saddam brought the entire country down to poverty level and he waged quite a few wars in the Middle east.

Yeah, none of our business, but I didn't mention anything about the US, so please, try and stay on topic here. That entirely falls out of the current topic frame. This whole thing circles around the prosecution and execution of him. And the point is that they did lead their own trial against him - remember that it was the Iraqi court of law that sentenced him to death, not the US.

Hey, the U.S. just pissed away 600 billion dollars and 3,000 lives and 20,000 limbs and minds in Vietnam 2:Roadside Bomb Bugaloo. Its our ****ing business. When you prosecute someone for war crimes and crimes against humanity you don't half ass it. Air all the dirty laundry, nab and villify everyone who was involved, and sensibly, orderly, and legally punish afterwards. Compare the Nuremburg trials to this, the trials are on two totally different planes of justice.

*agrees with all the anti-execution people*

An eye for an eye is stupid. That won't ever change the fact that all of the terrible atrocities he committed actually happened.

That just makes it all better. In hindsight, it's going to bring a lot more Saddam jokes. Yar.

No, that's quite common in any legal system. You bring to trial the charges that are most likely to stick. If they fail then you fall back on other ones. It's not like he was going to be hanged another time just because he got charged with more crimes. This way, it was simple and over toot sweet and the thing didn't have to drag on for 20 years as they listed through all his crimes.

That's a very weak excuse nate. Consider this;
The guy reigned a country, tried to conquer the Middle East on more than one occasion, slaughtered Kurds, ordered executions and brought his country down to nothing. The fact that it is "quite common in any legal system" is incorrect.
This was a muslim court of law, I do believe they would - unlike in the ones found in the US - be a little more responsible and give alot of attention to everything that's been done, with Sharia and all - although Iraq was one of the first countries to ditch that, but I still think they had no other means of prosecuting him. And also, if you would care to read what I initially posted, I never said they should hang him in the first place, so no - of course they shouldn't hang him again and again, for all the things he has done.

My point is - and most of you seem unable to follow - he messed things up, if it weren't for him, the US wouldn't have invaded the country and there would be no bloodshed of current magnitude. Killing him will only enhance this effect, which is why I think they should have kept him alive. I do not for a second believe that what he did was in any way right, or that he shouldn't have faced the consequences for his actions. However, considering the current circumstances in the region, I believe that an execution is the last thing they should have carried out - it can only worsen the situation. Too late now, though.

Have you even considered what it means to the situation in Iraq? That he was prosecuted for killing 148 Shiites, that is. Bearing that in mind, don't you think that'll give even more reason for segregation between the two sides, giving even more reason to fight oneanother - leading to an even greater civil war, making it impossible for US troops to withdraw since it's a lose-or-lose situation no matter what they do. It's very easy to act on instinct and just get it over with, but why doesn't anyone consider what the people over there are left to deal with?

I'm not disagreeing with you but you have to live in the real world, rather than ideals. Trials (of any sort) are expensive, drawn out affairs. Humans like things to be short and sweet. Some sort of compromise must be made. The same thing can be seen in the cases of any significant multiple-criminal - best examples I can think of are serial killers and rapists - they are charged for the most severe and provable crimes first and the others fall by the wayside.

Like I said before, the resulting sentence is the same either way.

Saddam was an Evil Guy. Also a german knows this.
I think his dead was fully justified.