Part of the problem with the whole Saddam execution is that he was charged by tribunal for the most part--and operating on the basis of trial by jury of peers--no jury made of Saddam's peers (mostly sunni Muslims) would have convicted him.
Besides, while it's extreme what he did to that village... I'm surprised no one even tried the self-defense plea on that. I mean, to use a local example... what would happen if the whole town of Sewickley were involved in the assassination of a U.S. president (and for you feds reading this, this is a philosophical question... damn perverts)...
As for the Kurds... I don't see us bombing our beloved friends from the remnants of the Ottoman Empire in Turkey. Who from what I've read treat the Kurds about as nicely as Saddam did--and would still be doing so, if the US hadn't forced them into a slight policy change.
What they should have done with Saddam's trial, is sentence him to life imprisonment like he's done for so many others... although who's to say he wasn't entirely justified in quite a few of those circumstances.
People invariably want what others have and when one group uses force to try and rest power from another, then the group that's resisting will of course use force to defend their power. And that includes wiping out 183 men and boys in a village, as anyone in the revenge business will tell you... revenge is passed from father to son. Not that women can't get revenge--but they have no standing in Islamic society, so it seems--so it's a strictly male thing. Like how male lions will kill the cubs of the preceding head of the pride when they take over a pride.
And a life sentence for Saddam would also remove any martyrdom that he or his followers would seek to justify the intensification of violence currently going on in Bagdad.
If we can't be equally fair in stopping human rights abuses let alone spreading democracy evenly (eyes US, Russia, and China beadily) then we should get out of this whole 'spread democracy' kick we've been on since after the Civil War.
Heh...
Besides, while it's extreme what he did to that village... I'm surprised no one even tried the self-defense plea on that. I mean, to use a local example... what would happen if the whole town of Sewickley were involved in the assassination of a U.S. president (and for you feds reading this, this is a philosophical question... damn perverts)...
As for the Kurds... I don't see us bombing our beloved friends from the remnants of the Ottoman Empire in Turkey. Who from what I've read treat the Kurds about as nicely as Saddam did--and would still be doing so, if the US hadn't forced them into a slight policy change.
What they should have done with Saddam's trial, is sentence him to life imprisonment like he's done for so many others... although who's to say he wasn't entirely justified in quite a few of those circumstances.
People invariably want what others have and when one group uses force to try and rest power from another, then the group that's resisting will of course use force to defend their power. And that includes wiping out 183 men and boys in a village, as anyone in the revenge business will tell you... revenge is passed from father to son. Not that women can't get revenge--but they have no standing in Islamic society, so it seems--so it's a strictly male thing. Like how male lions will kill the cubs of the preceding head of the pride when they take over a pride.
And a life sentence for Saddam would also remove any martyrdom that he or his followers would seek to justify the intensification of violence currently going on in Bagdad.
If we can't be equally fair in stopping human rights abuses let alone spreading democracy evenly (eyes US, Russia, and China beadily) then we should get out of this whole 'spread democracy' kick we've been on since after the Civil War.