Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Bush: Saddam Deserves Ultimate Penalty

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Bush: Saddam Deserves Ultimate Penalty

    Bush: Saddam Deserves Ultimate Penalty
    Associated Press
    December 17, 2003


    LONDON - President Bush said Saddam Hussein deserves the "ultimate penalty" for his crimes, but he faced objections from Europe, the United Nations and the Vatican, which are adamantly opposed to the death penalty.

    But while most European countries have abolished the death penalty, it's not clear how vociferously they would object to a death sentence for the captured Iraqi president.

    A day after saying his opinion on Saddam's fate doesn't matter and it's a decison for Iraqi citizen, Bush stepped forward with an unequivocal statement of his views.

    "Let's just see what penalty he gets, but I think he ought to receive the ultimate penalty ... for what he has done to his people," Bush told ABC News' Diane Sawyer in an interview broadcast Tuesday. "I mean, he is a torturer, a murderer, they had rape rooms. This is a disgusting tyrant who deserves justice, the ultimate justice."

    Bush said Saddam's punishment "will be decided not by the president of the United States but by the citizens of Iraq in one form or another."

    Britain's left-leaning Guardian newspaper said Saddam should be tried by a United Nations-approved tribunal that would not impose the death penalty. "The last thing Iraq needs is another corpse - or a martyr," the paper said in an editorial.

    British Prime Minister Tony Blair's spokesman said earlier this week that Britain opposes the death penalty, but it would have to accept an Iraqi decision to execute.

    Yet Britain's top representative in Iraq, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, said his country would not participate in a tribunal or legal process that could lead to execution.

    The Vatican's Cardinal Renato Martino stressed the Roman Catholic Church's longtime opposition to capital punishment.

    He said he felt "compassion" for Saddam, despite his crimes, after seeing images of "this destroyed man" being "treated like a cow, having his teeth checked" by an American military medic.

    U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said the world body opposes the death penalty. The European Union shares his view.

    "We believe there are no circumstances that can justify the death penalty," said Diego Ojeda, the EU's spokesman on external relations.

    Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who supported the U.S.-led war that ousted Saddam, also emphasized his country's opposition to the death penalty.

    The international community and the Iraqi leadership "must show the Iraqis that an alternative to the past decades' terror regimes exists," Denmark's Berlingske Tidende newspaper said.

    Bush has long been a proponent of capital punishment. During his six years as governor of Texas, 152 convicts were put to death. All 15 member nations of the European Union have abolished capital punishment, and they often encourage other countries - most notably the United States - to abolish it.

    Members of the U.S.-appointed Iraq Governing Council have predicted a quick trial and a quick execution for Saddam. The U.S. occupation authority suspended using the death penalty, and Iraqi officials have said they will decide whether to reinstate it when a transitional government assumes sovereignty, scheduled on July 1.

    Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Yuri Fedotov, whose country opposed the war, said only Iraqis could decide Saddam's fate.

    But Australia's Prime Minister John Howard, who sent troops to fight in Iraq, said he would support the death penalty for Iraq. "If it were imposed, absolutely," he said.

    http://www.military.com/NewsContent?file=FL_bush_121703
    "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

  • #2
    How about the ultimate form of multi-culturalism which Leftist and Europeans profess to support and let the Iraqi's stone him to death.

    Comment


    • #3
      Europeans are more leftist than the average American, but I don't really think they embrace multiculturalism all that much.

      The US is a nation of immigrants, so although many don't like immigration, they are in the same boat our ancestors were a long time ago. (pun intended)

      I think Europeans more or less see their nation as exclusively theirs, and they look down upon immigrants and foreigners much more than the Americans do.

      Most Germans refer to foreigners as "Auslanders", regardless if they were born there or not. The French despise the Maghrebians. Spaniards do not like Moroccans one bit. People in the UK for the large part do not like the Asians or blacks.
      "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

      Comment


      • #4
        Of course they do, they think all cultures are morally equal. That is multi-culturalism.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Ironman
          Europeans are more leftist than the average American, but I don't really think they embrace multiculturalism all that much.

          The US is a nation of immigrants, so although many don't like immigration, they are in the same boat our ancestors were a long time ago. (pun intended)

          I think Europeans more or less see their nation as exclusively theirs, and they look down upon immigrants and foreigners much more than the Americans do.

          Most Germans refer to foreigners as "Auslanders", regardless if they were born there or not. The French despise the Maghrebians. Spaniards do not like Moroccans one bit. People in the UK for the large part do not like the Asians or blacks.
          Sorry but this post is just complete rubbish.

          There are sections of every community that does not like its immigrants, of which there is no doubt. There are also sections of any community that don't like the natives!

          Germany has had one of the most liberal "open door" policies of any nations. This was deliberately pursued after the racism etc that existed during the Nazi era. The French have had a large immigration from the former colonies.
          The UK has had former colonies with millions of immigrants from Asia, the West Indies, Africa, Ireland etc. It now has many from Central Europe etc.

          The generalisation that many of the lcoals don't like the immigrants is, frankly just facile. Of course there are your NF types who hate the Asians or Africans. But they are very much a "media attractive" minority.

          It is no more accurate to say that, than it is to look at the actions of the KKK and then say that "most Americans are racists that like to burn crosses and lynch black people".

          Originally posted by Praxus
          Of course they do, they think all cultures are morally equal. That is multi-culturalism
          Who the hell is "they"? There are 300 million people in Europe, "they" don't all think alike. nor do "they" all come from the same culture.

          I know you view the US culture as superior in every way and that all others should be crushed under the cowboy boot. But i don't think that you are representative of the other 250m of your nation.
          at

          Comment


          • #6
            You presume Praxus wears cowboy boots? I'm from Texas and I don't even wear cowboy boots...
            Your look more lost than a bastard child on fathers day.

            Comment


            • #7
              it was a metaphor for US culture. The fact that it doesn't cover the whole of the US is somewhat my point
              at

              Comment


              • #8
                Who the hell is "they"? There are 300 million people in Europe, "they" don't all think alike. nor do "they" all come from the same culture.

                I know you view the US culture as superior in every way and that all others should be crushed under the cowboy boot. But i don't think that you are representative of the other 250m of your nation.
                They is the Eurocrats and they is the so called intilectuals in US Universitys.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Ah right. You should say that then.

                  Regarding putting Saddam to the sword (or Stones as Praxus suggests) i suppose i should voice an opinion as a "leftist multi-cultural European". I am awaiting pinko-commie shortly :)

                  I normally don't go for the death penalty - but none of my normal reasons apply to Saddam. However he does have one attribute that makes his case very different, he is a captured despot which in itself makes him an asset of history. Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot etc were not brought to justice in a manner that Saddam can be.

                  The problem is that ideally Saddam would demonstrate his despotness to the world, making the west's case all the more easy. The likelihood is that he will be able to get enough "sound bites" in to fuel a few more nutters to strap on the explosives and head for the shops.

                  The squaddies that captured him did an excellent job getting him alive, however having a live despot is possibly a dangerous thing and maybe it would have been easier for him to "die a martyr" in a gunfight than to be executed by a western protected Iraqi regime that has allowed him to "rally the faithful". Assuming the "faithful" haven't seen him for the coward he appears to be.
                  at

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    As long as 1st Degree or 2nd Degree murder has been proven beyond any reasonable dought I say kill him.

                    Why should innocent people have to pay for a murders exsistance?

                    As for Saddam, humiliate him in front of the world and then hang and or stone him.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Sorry but this post is just complete rubbish.

                      There are sections of every community that does not like its immigrants, of which there is no doubt. There are also sections of any community that don't like the natives!

                      Germany has had one of the most liberal "open door" policies of any nations. This was deliberately pursued after the racism etc that existed during the Nazi era. The French have had a large immigration from the former colonies.
                      The UK has had former colonies with millions of immigrants from Asia, the West Indies, Africa, Ireland etc. It now has many from Central Europe etc.

                      The generalisation that many of the lcoals don't like the immigrants is, frankly just facile. Of course there are your NF types who hate the Asians or Africans. But they are very much a "media attractive" minority.

                      It is no more accurate to say that, than it is to look at the actions of the KKK and then say that "most Americans are racists that like to burn crosses and lynch black people".
                      It is my impression that Europeans are wary of outsiders. Racist? No, I don't think most Europeans are.
                      "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I all humans are wary of outsiders. Humans form tribes and in modern societies thse tribes can be based on race, nationality, football team, corporate employment, hobbies.

                        People are:dbanana
                        at

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Trooth
                          The French have had a large immigration from the former colonies.
                          And the French are playing there immigration policy.

                          Who the hell is "they"? There are 300 million people in Europe, "they" don't all think alike. nor do "they" all come from the same culture.
                          They are the intellectual elites in Germany, in France, and in England and there brain washed followers who think they they should have a say in American foreign policy. Those who think their oil contracts trump the right of others to have freedom.

                          I know you view the US culture as superior in every way and that all others should be crushed under the cowboy boot. But i don't think that you are representative of the other 250m of your nation.
                          First, our culture is superior to yours. The people of our culture stood and fought Fascism, Communism and now terrorism. The majority of Europeans now stand against us in our war. They had it their way Saddam would still be ruling, raping, and butchering his way through Iraq. Secondly, my views are the beliefs had many Americans, in fact a majority. It isn't a fringe belief in America to think we did the right thing in Iraq, or that France should shut up.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            How is your culture superior to mine? Which are you likening me to? France? Germany? US? My personal view is that the war against Iraq was risky (not militarily but politically) but the right thing to do. However Bush and Blair arsed up the platorm for the war with quite possibly the most amateurish display. That and the ill planned peace are a problem. But no i would rather Saddam had been deposed.

                            My culture fought Facism, Communism and fought terror despite the US funding the terror my culture was fighting.

                            I am not sure what you mean by the oil rights being over people's freedoms. If you mean people who think oil is more important than people are wrong then i would agree with you.

                            Whilst i am no fan of the French, and least of all their immigration policy, especially after the tricks of Sengatte, i reserve their right to play their own policy, just as America pursues its own foreign policy.

                            The problem at the moment is that the only real foreign policy mediator (the UN) has now been reduced to an irrelevance. Perhaps it always was, but sometimes symbols are important just by existing. Now small nations have no way of influencing foreign policy of larger nations. I guess they just have to join up with the lobbyist groups and influence domestic policy. Or tehy will take to more "active" forms of action. I am not ocndoning it, more trying to see the consequences.

                            Also, it imght be worth me pointing out that Europe is not one country anymore than North America is a country. There is no common foreign policy on either continent.
                            at

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Trooth
                              However Bush and Blair arsed up the platorm for the war with quite possibly the most amateurish display.
                              Was France doing the same? Because they came to the same conclusion about WMD's as we did.

                              That and the ill planned peace are a problem. But no i would rather Saddam had been deposed.
                              What should they have done? Handed it over to the UN. So they could create another socialist mess like Kosovo.

                              My culture fought Facism, Communism and fought terror despite the US funding the terror my culture was fighting.
                              Your comparison between Irish terrorism and Islamist terrorism is deeply flawed and you know it.

                              I am not sure what you mean by the oil rights being over people's freedoms. If you mean people who think oil is more important than people are wrong then i would agree with you.
                              That's what France did. It put there oil contracts a head of freedom for the Iraqi people.

                              Whilst i am no fan of the French, and least of all their immigration policy, especially after the tricks of Sengatte, i reserve their right to play their own policy, just as America pursues its own foreign policy.
                              And I have the right to condemn them is the hashes way for there policies which degrade the security of the United States.

                              The problem at the moment is that the only real foreign policy mediator (the UN) has now been reduced to an irrelevance.
                              Good.

                              Now small nations have no way of influencing foreign policy of larger nations.
                              As it has been for all of history, and how it should be. I'm tired of tin pot dictatorships getting a vote on American foreign policy.

                              I guess they just have to join up with the lobbyist groups and influence domestic policy.
                              Any pol that gives the time of day to a lobbyist from another country should be thrown out of office.

                              Or tehy will take to more "active" forms of action.
                              Good luck to them, but seeing how they are small countries that we are talking about I don't think they are going to do much damage.

                              Also, it imght be worth me pointing out that Europe is not one country anymore than North America is a country. There is no common foreign policy on either continent.
                              Europe will have a united foreign policy if France has it's way. I hope countries like the UK and Poland will stop that from going through any thing soon.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X