What do you think about Saddam Hussien's execution?

Comments

Comments

• this is such a well thought out answer, I rated you up knocking my own answer down, great info!

  • Report
  

  by BobSaccamano-is-back on December 31st, 2006

• Having once been held hostage by Saddam I was ready to put in an answer, then I read yours, nice work, I rate you up.

  • Report
  

  by Dog_Star on December 31st, 2006

Comments

Comments

• i agree completely.

  • Report
  

  by fender_carly_strat on December 29th, 2006

• I completely concur. But that would not play well with the prefixed and predetermined 'agendas' of the powers that be, regardless of which side of the Atlantic they reside.

  • Report
  

  by blessings on December 31st, 2006

Comments

• exactly.

  • Report
  

  by justme32 loves the weekends on January 2nd, 2007

Comments

• good answer.

  • Report
  

  by fender_carly_strat on December 29th, 2006

Comments

• I can understand that and I am against the idea many share that he should have been tormented and made to suffer greatly as I personally believe we should be above the very actions we are against.

  • Report
  

  by Snooch on December 31st, 2006

• yea, I know, the same people who get soo upset over others tortured seem to find solace in wishing others pain

  • Report
  

  by BobSaccamano-is-back on December 31st, 2006

• Exactly

  • Report
  

  by Snooch on December 31st, 2006

Comments

• Why is every question of the body politic always a 'conspiracy theory' to you? Is it just in the field of politics? If I point out the questions of Barry Bonds performances, is that a 'conspiracy theory' as well? If I tell you of the Reuters survey and the Rutgers scientific studies of the errors in electronic voting machines, does your bell really start ringing and you spout 'Conspiracy theory!' over and over? I just get the impression that you categorize societal questioning easily this way, that's all.

  • Report
  

  by blessings on December 29th, 2006

• Well the Rutgers study is true they arn't exactly secure but where the conspiracy theory comes in is when you start saying that they fixed the election. Come on blessings your talking about nuking Jupiter to start up a second sun, you talk about Waco as if the ATF just decided it would be fun to kill everyone inside (Even though they where under siege for a week). Now with less then an hour after the death of Saddam you are saying "Well how do we know its him." Is Elvis still alive? How about Hitler? Did the US really land on the moon? Do these conspirecy theories make your life more entertaining? I hate to be mean to you but geez. I assure you Saddam Hussien former "president" of Iraq, genocidal manic and madman extrodinare is DEAD, DECEASED, TERMINATED. His body fell the sudden shift in G forces at the end of the rope snapped his neck rendering him unconcious and the rope sufficated him. The end

  • Report
  

  by Valparaiso on December 29th, 2006

• interesting theory.

  • Report
  

  by fender_carly_strat on December 29th, 2006

• Actually, it's not common to be rendered unconscious. Sometimes the neck does not even break. It depends on the counterweight. Kicking is not just spasm, but normal reaction to strangulation and a crushed windpipe. Elvis and Hitler both live on, but not in this world. Yes, U.S. astronauts did land on the moon, but nervous Nixon had a backup made in London studios with the help of Stanley Kubrick, who years later parlayed that into the loan of a one-of-a-kind million dollar low light lens to aid in his filming of Barry Lyndon, courtesy of guess who? NASA. And Kubrick's widow has shared with friends how Stanley was terrified of CIA and US goons in general. Some of the footage in the backup is responsible for the hue and cry of no landings, but the lazer beams bouncing back from the reflector left on the surface are evidence enough. Now they did discover interesting anomalies...but that's another read. (It is not ME suggesting the nuking of Jupiter, but those MUCH smarter than you or I.)

  • Report
  

  by blessings on December 30th, 2006

• If they are that smart they would be smart enough to know that even if we could make a second star it could lead to our untimely demise.

  • Report
  

  by Valparaiso on December 30th, 2006

• You should read more. That may or may not be true. There are many binary star systems, and the astronomical distances in this particular case are what give the impetus to this sort of talk. I do not agree that it is wise, but for different reasons. I think to interfere with the thoughtful and intelligent design already evident in our system (For instance, did you know Jupiter 'shields' earth from much more frequent and massive collisons from all sorts of deep space objects?) is simply asking for trouble. But the deferential nod to Satan, the inference to things dark spiritually, the naming of this as 'Lucifer' project, all indicte to me the utter depravity of those who even THINK like this. They desire to 'play' God. (Some of the truly brilliant who circulate in the rarified air of the super intelligent do become repentant, as did Oppenheimer. Most are agnostic.) Check the references and sources in the long article at the web address I gave you. Also, check out www.reasonstobelieve.org

  • Report
  

  by blessings on December 31st, 2006

• Yeah I know Jupiter cleans up a lot of trash and asteroids that might have otherwise come our way. The question is what would happen to earth if we became a bianry star system? Would Jupiter just continue to revolve around the sun as it would be the smaller star? If so what would happen to all of Jupiter's moons? And when the earth passed Jupiter in its regular orbit would it roast us alive or would it just make us have an almost 24 hour day until we had passed Jupiter's orbit. I still don't think we could do it even if we tried.

  • Report
  

  by Valparaiso on December 31st, 2006

• If such a horrendous event ever occurs, the moon will no longer be the light of the evening sky. We will see two suns, and I cannot say as to the effects for us here. Some idiots are actively promoting the 'oogenesis of Titan' (see the JPL link previous) with hopes of human populations there eventually. The trouble is, these nuts appear well funded and well connected, and as the recent past proves, almost any attrocity is possible when those two things combine.

  • Report
  

  by blessings on December 31st, 2006

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

• The entire judicial process was a farce, completely controlled by the U.S. military. Once, an open mike accidentially picked up the voice of the actor portraying Saddam, and frantic sound techs quickly cut the feed. Ever since, all video feed was sans sound. All of it. Why? There are too many worldwide with abilities to do voice matching, reverse speech testing, and voice imprint comparisons to allow such a thing. It is interesting, though, your ambivalence. That is the pernicious quandry opponents of the death penalty find themselves; 'I know I don't like it, but golly gee, this WAS such a bad guy.' Back and forth. Back and forth. And of course, the media has drummed 'democracy' into our heads all our lives that we accept that as the reality and genesis of our own country. It was not. America was founded a republic. A democracy is a doomed institution subject to mob rule without checks. The framers of our country were prayerful, thoughtful men careful to instill checks and balances.

  • Report
  

  by blessings on December 31st, 2006

• I'm not ambivalent on the death penalty in general, as I said. I am opposed to it. I think it the mark of an immature and vengeful society. What I said was that I wish I was more than ambivalent towards Saddam's execution. I wish I opposed it as I do all others. And as for your continued conspiracy theories, you need look no further than the documents that the Founding Fathers you so fervently speak for wrote themselves. It's not just "the media" (Why is the media always the fall guy for you right-wing nuts?) who spoke of this nation as a democracy. I think that if you truly look at their historical presence, not just the highlights in the history books or whatever "smoking gun"-eque websites and journals you frequent and subscribe to, you may find yourself surprised at what you find. They were not the "prayerful", religious men you think. At least not in the way you seem to think. The first Americans escaped from such fundamentalism as you and your kind preach.

  • Report
  

  by teknimage on December 31st, 2006

• They neither 'escaped from such fundamentalism' nor were they 'not the prayerful, religious men' I think. Talk about 'highlights in the history books'! You seem literate enough. I did not say all of these men were Christian, but that they were '...prayerful, thoughtful men'. (For interesting insights into Jefferson, go to http://www.theology.edu/ushistor.htm) Not prayerful? The Continental Congress made their first official act a CALL TO PRAYER on September 6, 1774, just after receiving news that troops had attacked Boston. The first prayer in Congress was uttered on September 7, 1774, in Carpenter's Hall, Philadelphia. Our very own Library of Congress records: "Washington was kneeling there, and Henry, Randolph, Rutledge, Lee, and Jay, and by their side there stood, bowed in reverence, the Puritan Patriots of New England, who at that moment had reason to believe that an armed soldiery was wasting their households." Adams wrote of seeing tears in the eyes of those there! You are wrong.

  • Report
  

  by blessings on December 31st, 2006

• I didn't say that religion didn't play an important role in their lives, my friend. I said that you are falling prey to a typical historical hindsight. You are using your standards and language to see the past, instead of looking at it in its actual context. An example would be the theory that Lincoln was gay. The "evidence" for this is that he often slept in a single bed with the same man for years and wrote him letters talking about how much he loved him and missed him when they were apart. This looks pretty convincing on the surface, yet when taken in context of how people communicated and what words and meanings of words were in common usage at the time, it is clear that these indicated a close and trustworthy friend, not a lover. As for checking out your theology.com link, I read it while keeping an eye to who runs the site. Religion is even worse than most history books when trying to view the actual, factual past. I don't believe the Earth is only 6000 years old, either.

  • Report
  

  by teknimage on December 31st, 2006

• When did you hear me say the 'earth is only 6000 years old', and why do you lump all of we people of faith in that crowd? (I have told you before, but perhaps you missed it; please check out www.reasonstobelieve.org for a more accurate assessment.) No one is 'falling prey to a typical historical hindsight', nor not 'looking at it in its actual context', unless that is you. I said plainly the context (THEY thought at that very moment that their own loved ones, family, and friends were pillaged, raped, burned, even dead.), and it is not just historical hindsight to infer the obvious feelings felt by all in that room! And what was their first act? What in this time of stress was their first human desire? TO PRAY! My prayer for you is that YOU never find yourself in such terror, but if you do, that you will also have the same good sense as evident by the framers of our Constitution and Declaration of Independence.

  • Report
  

  by blessings on December 31st, 2006

• Well, thank you, I think. And, BTW, I never said *you* said the Earth was only 6000 years old. I was using that to illustrate that I don't buy into conspiracy theories without proof, whether they be religious, historical or political. Just please remain calm. There's no need to get so worked up. I'm just discussing these things with you. I'm glad you are providing these references, I like to read. But, I don't need to find Christian ideology in science. I like science for what it actually does, which is impartially view the universe. When you start throwing faith and religion in with it, it's no longer impartial because every discovery has to be weighed against an unprovable belief. For instance, where would modern medicine be, and would could it go, if religion still held sway over how we view the "sanctity" of the human body? I'm not saying Faith is wrong at all, far from it, just not really always a good thing to combine with science.

  • Report
  

  by teknimage on December 31st, 2006

• I am calm, teknimage. I submit this not mere 'unprovable beliefs', but evidenced in all we see around us to the extent that one is willing to look. Your comment about 'sancity' of the human body is laughable, yet it rings home with me. I can tell you of a certainty that those antiquated views are not only held by the 'religious' of the world now and in times past, but cherished by those learned and 'scientific' folk we look up to. I was rebuked, had written demerits entered into my file, and subsequently was rebuffed for 'violating the sanctity of this place' by being in labs adjacent to the morgue of a major hospital. My crime? Acquiescing and accepting an invitation to attend a fetal autopsy from the attending surgeon. (This occured when I was in pre-med.) And you do 'buy into...theories without proof' all the time. You accept as fact (or more likely blithely ignore) many theorems for which you do not have proof. Why earmark and label the ones 'conspiracy' for special treatment?

  • Report
  

  by blessings on December 31st, 2006

• Well, I'm sure you do not know me well enough to know what I may or may not believe, but you go right ahead and think what you will. As for whatever befell you, I again do not know. I'm not sure what that has to do with what I was saying about religion fighting against the burgeoning field of surgery a few centuries ago, as they are again to day with various fields of research, such as embryonic stem cell research. But, I'm glad you seem to have your ears and eyes open to whatever it is you personally believe. We all need something to get us through the day, don't we?

  • Report
  

  by teknimage on December 31st, 2006

Comments

Comments

• We didn't kill him, we only located him and turned him over to his own people to be dealt with for his crimes against them. That is called justice.

  • Report
  

  by Darryl61 on December 29th, 2006

• The death penalty is quicker and easier to legally enact overseas, unless you're in Texas. As for whether it's justice, I agree that in this case it is.

  • Report
  

  by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on December 29th, 2006

• Still, Darryl61, it is a thoughtful comment. I suspect the next one in the sights to be the President of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez. He is a very deffinite threat to 'big oil', and that drives most of the world's economy. Plus, he is a threat to the status quo.

  • Report
  

  by blessings on December 31st, 2006

• Other countries may say the same of George W. Bush. And logically how could they be wrong if we are right? Therefore, 'justice' is a matter of perspective. Justice by whom's standards?

  • Report
  

  by 8 Jan 2004-10 Dec 2009 on December 31st, 2006

• Other countries can, and DO, say the same of Bush. It is the activity of the CIA and U.S. imperialism that drives the hate. Look at what happened in Afghanistan. The Taliban (which we helped form and supported) burned the poppy fields, which sent a clear and VERY LOUD message to the real powers that be. How? The fact that the majority of the world's opium comes from Afghanistan's poppy fields, and is crucial to the money laundering and bolstering of stocks and financial statements of top U.S. corporations, and much of the world as well. This could not be allowed, nor go unanswered. Isn't it interesting that after the U.S. invasion, the CIA re-planted and the following season saw the largest bumper crop EVER? 'Justice by whom's standards?' The universal standards of truth and justice as espoused by the Judge of the quick and the dead. Justice is not just 'a matter of perspective', but a matter of concern to all who love truth.

  • Report
  

  by blessings on December 31st, 2006

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

• I do think he was too full of blind hate to ask forgiveness

  • Report
  

  by BobSaccamano-is-back on December 31st, 2006

• I think what he was taught and where he was from played a part in that. I did see a difference in his look this past week. I am hoping he saw how wrong he has been all these years.

  • Report
  

  by Snooch on December 31st, 2006

• Altho.. he never voiced it .. so it is probably doubtful bleh to have such a cold heart!

  • Report
  

  by Snooch on January 3rd, 2007

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments