SHOULD SADDAM HUSSEIN BE EXECUTED? ( FREEP ALERT!!! )

KQED Public Service ^ | 16 January 2004 | KQED (PBS) San Francisco

[Howie66]

I voted YES for death to Saddam.

What follows are my comments on their bulletin board:

"Who is the flaming moron responsible for this so called "poll"?
For crying out loud, it really is a Yes or No question. Rather, what do we get? "Oh, your answer is "Yes". Well, then, are you sure? "Yes" again. Are you REALLY sure?" "Yes" yet again. "Well, then, are you REALLY REALLY sure?"

What the hell kind of poll is this?

If you socialist, limp wristed panty waste dorks don't want an HONEST ANSWER to a simple question, then by all means, don't ask the question in the first place.

Here's a better poll question for you. "Should the San Francisco Bay are be quaranteed from the rest of America? Should those that live there be placed at the mercy of the rest of the world with NO SUPPORT (financial, social, medically or militarily) whatever from the rest of the United States? A simple YES or NO response is sufficient. My vote would be an absolute YES."

Let then stuff that in their crack pipe and smoke it.

Liberals = a good arguement for retro-active abortion.

[Robert Drobot]

The 'NO' voters - after their initial vote are asked:

Are you sure?......Voting NO again, they are asked:

What if you knew that the Bush administration and the Iraqi Governing Council (IGC) support the death penalty and have advocated its use in bringing Saddam to justice??......Voting NO again, they are asked:

What if you knew that many American and Iraqi citizens support the death penalty for Saddam What if you knew that there is a historical precedent for the execution of war criminals?......Voting NO again, they are asked:

What if you knew that some argue the severity of Saddam's atrocities warrants the death penalty?

So far the vote from the city that dares boast it's the home of the The Gorbachev Foundation of North America is showing its commie colors.

[Chani]

for later consumption

[TheDon]

The Iraqi people WILL decide. Anyone else's opinion on this topic is just the wind blowing.

[TigersEye]

If you knew that some of the best seafood restaurants in the world were there would you still vote to cut off San Francisco?

[Redwood71]

Let his own people do the conviction, and commit the execusion. If we do it, he martyrs. If they do it, he dies in disgrace to his religion as he didn't die taking infidels with him. Additionally, he fails to go to his heaven with his virgins.

Red

[BulletBobCo]

Yes 110 46%
No 128 54%

[metesky]

They also ask you four or five times if you vote "no" with repeated explanations of the pro-death penalty arguments.

Seems pretty balanced to me, and they didn't change my mind.

Swing that sucker from the nearest tree!

[goodnesswins]

YES - 48%
NO - 52%

What an assinine poll. Loaded with PROPAGANDA!

[Pan_Yans Wife]

yes, they do... they give you BOTH sides of the poll, kind of neat

[Howie66]

"If you knew that some of the best seafood restaurants in the world were there would you still vote to cut off San Francisco?"


You betcher sweet Lobster-tails I would. In a heartbeat!

[TigersEye]

What if you knew it was a favorite vacation spot for millions of Americans would you still vote to cut off San Francisco?

[TigersEye]

Maybe he thought he was doing what he thought was right,...

What do you mean maybe? He definitely did and so did Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao ........... what's a few million murders between friends?

[RonHolzwarth]

I agree with Winston Churchill.

After the end of World War Two, he wrote in his memoirs (sorry I cannot recall his exact words) that it was an historical certainty that the dictators of the losing sides of a war would meet with tragic ends.

The reason he felt this was a very bad idea, was that a dictator has no reason to end a war early, and save many lives, not to mention saving property with which a nation could rebuild itself.

Case in point: Adolf Hitler.

I do NOT mean to defend him or his actions in ANY WAY, I do want to make that perfectly clear, as did Winston Churchill.

Hitler had NO REASON to give up, and surrender to the allied forces. He was going to die after the war, he knew that. So why should he bother to end the war early? He had no personal reason to do that, so the war was fought to the bitter end, and Germany was just about totally destroyed.

IF there was a precedent, or it was the norm, for a contrite ex-dictator to voluntarily give up and surrender, and receive not immunity, but instead banishment to a safe place, there would be GOOD REASONS to end a war sooner.

As it was, and still is, an ex-dictator has NO CHANCE of living out his life in exile after a war. So, what is the point of ending the war before the bitter end? None at all, as far as a dictator is personally concerned.

Anyone who has read Alfred Speer's books ("Inside the Third Reich", and "Twenty Years in Spandau") would have to agree that it would be a very, very worthwhile endeavor to force an "outlaw leader" to live out his life, AND to write down his memoirs.

The resulting book would then be used by future generations in ways we cannot imagine to prevent wars we cannot imagine, and most likely, would have benefits of which we simply cannot conceive.

Unfortunately, the Nurenburg trials ended with the death sentence for the Nazi leaders (except for Hitler and Hess), and so their thoughts are lost to history. So, since we do not, and now never will, know their viewpoints and the reasons they acted as they did, the same thing could easily happen again. Simply killing Saddam Hussein would serve no purpose at all, other than "revenge". What we, and future generations need to know basically come down to three things, and they are VERY IMPORTANT!

1) Why did this happen?
2) How did this happen?
3) How can we prevent this from happening again?

If Saddam Hussein is killed, I assure you that his death will be a rallying call for many, and the results will be ugly. The United States will look like the "bad guy", for sure.

If he could be placed in a safe "lock-up" facility, and FORCED to write his memoirs (with help, of course), the result might be something quite extraordinary.

Reading the memoirs of a contrite Saddam Hussein just MIGHT make a lot of "jihadists" rethink their position, and make the world a better place. In fact, the memoirs of Saddam Hussein just MIGHT be the most powerful weapon we will ever have with which to fight the "War on Terror".

He's going to die someday anyway, and I am sure there is a Final Judgment awaiting him. BUT if we can get some good out of him, making the world a better place, by getting him to write his memoirs, I am sure that he could NEVER be a rallying point for extremists, the USA would not look like the "bad guy", AND:

Future generations would thank us.

Let's not think of only the present. Keep Saddam safe, and learn what we can from him.
Historians of the future are watching.
Dammit, I should be a politician!

[Howie66]

"Should Saddam be killed? Maybe so, but why are we so quick to see him dead in this perspective we are no different then him. Maybe he thought he was doing what he thought was right, or maybe he is just crazy. So why don't we just let him spend the rest of his miserable life in prison."

If you would have read my first response to this "poll", you would see where I made the point that the fate of Saddam is the business of the Iraqi people.

Since this "poll" did not list that as an option, then I went with the only logical choice in my opinion: death for Saddam.

[weegee]

Sounds like a push poll if I ever saw one. The originators of the poll KNOW the response that they want to see.

[Howie66]

You betcher booties, Granny!

[TigersEye]

What if you knew that the questioners in these multi-layered polls don't give a rat's ass what your answer is would you still vote to cut off San Francisco?