Just want to see what spectrum of people are on VJ

Why is this set up as a multiple choice poll? Do you really think there will be people who think Saddam both did and did not get a fair trial?

I've noticed that a lot of polls have been multiple choice lately when it doesn't make sense. Maybe some people somehow have that set as the default?

Maybe.

Personally, I think Saddam should and shouldn't have been executed. Maybe he should have been, I'm glad he was and outraged that he was, all at the same time. It pisses me off, I'm so happy.

I don't think people are purposely setting it up as mult choice. It may be the way polls are made automatically these days. ***Nevermind, there is that choice but I doubt people are doing in on purpose.

I wasn't really following his case, so I have no idea.

I really don't think he got a fair trial to be honest, I really think there was a lot of polotics involved, and the U.S. government had a major say in how the trial was handeled. This is a shame. It would have been much better to keep Sadam in prison until a time when Iraq was truly governed my the Iraq people, and all of this fighting had subsided even if that is 10-15 years down the line. Had that happend, and the trial took place when
*peace* and stability had eventually spread out throughout Iraq, that a trial at that time would have been more appropriate.

In the end, whether the trial happend today or in 10 years, I believe the outcome would have been the same - that he would have been found guilty and the ultimate punishment would have been carried out. However if the trial had happend later, I think history would have seen that to be a fairer trial than the one today.

I answered "No" to the first question and "Yes" to the second.

No and yes.

Yes to whether he should have been executed, because he WAS guilty of mass-murder (of Kurds, Shias, as well as others opposed to his regime).

No to whether trial was fair (not a function of Maliki's being US-propped-up)

Basically reminded me of the trial and execution of Z.A. Bhutto (the only difference was that I've never to this day learned whether Bhutto was actually guilty of the SPECIFIC crime for which Zia had him judicially-murdered).

This question obviously shows your incompitence level. There is two answers to the question YES or NO. Did'nt your mother teach you to think before you speak.

In an ideal world he should rot in jail, not be executed, yeah I know nobody will agree, I just don't agree with people killing people unless they have no choice

NO

YES

I feel as a former Head of states, He should have been tried by the International Tribunal for crime against humanity, not by a puppet govt, there was not partiality when you are being judge by your enemy. I do feel the outcome would have been the same, and let that be an example to those dictators who feel they can kill their own people with immunity, Now they have to know sooner or later, they will have to pay for their actions. Our govt supported Saddam, We gave him the weapons, We supported him in the fight against Iran, At the time Saddam was America's best friend, (hmmm NORIEGA ANYBODY). Even though We know he was committed those acts, we turned the other way because he was our allies, same as we are looking the other way at saoudi Arabia, But once the table turned, all those dirty laundry will come out of the closets, Call it fair I don't think so when

Your enemy playing Judge, Jury and Executioner.

lol. Multiple choice means being allowed to pick more than one answer

And it's spelled incompetence. Try the spellcheck next time, retard.

Confusing due to mistakes in English.

What you probably meant to say (corrections in bold):

Are you joking!!!
Multiple choice means there is more than one answer to pick from YOU RETARD. You can only pick one answer.


Who cares where Saddam was tried, we all know that he did it.... The soldiers that found him should have shot him in the whole that the ###### was hidding in. He got what he deserved. I think that his life for the thousands of lives that he took is a fair deal.

That may be correct in normal circumstances, but not here. When you create a poll, there is an option to make it multiple choice, as in a person can choose multiple answers to any given question. The "regular" poll restricts you to choosing only one answer.

I asked two simple questions. There is two answers to choose from per question, thats it. TWO ANSWERS TO CHOOSE FROM.
Multiple choice means exactly that MULTIPLE CHOICE, you get to choose your answer from the multiple options provided, in this case YES or NO. One answer not 3 or 4.

So why did you ask for other opinions if you don't like what is being offered....?

I think there is sufficient question over whether he received a fair trial to call into question its fairness. Fairness not only to him, but to the thousands of other victims who will probably never get their day in court to bear witness to the atrocities committed against them and their relatives.

Therefore I think it was certainly "wrong" to execute Saddam on the basis of such a trial. Like it or not that execution said as much about the state of government and justice in Iraq as it did about Sadaam Hussein. Execution with some sense of respect can at least be called justice. As it happened, this execution seemed like vengeance at best, a lynching at worst.

no, and no.

and for the record, I object to the use of the word retard in this thread.

Gupt's point was that the way the poll is set up, you can choose either or both answers to each question; you can choose both "yes" and "no" at the same time. This is what makes it multiple choice. A yes or no question should only have the possibility of answering "yes" or "no," but not both. There is a different kind of poll set-up for that, which uses "radio" buttons, the kind where only one answer at a time may be chosen.

obviously your a Secular Progressive!

I only asked for people to answer YES or NO to each question. ONE answer for each, its really easy to do. You select YES or NO. OMG I would hate to ask questions about rocket science.

Oh and for the record Saddam didnt deserve a fair trial because FAIR isnt and has never been in that idiot's vocab!!! However the trial was adhered to under Iraq law not US law. So all the U.S. haters on this thread should learn real quick to be more supportive of the country that they are trying to immigrate to.

OK you didn't like Saddam - who did...?

I see also that you can't reconcile your emotional response towards Saddam with the unemotional/impartial concept of "due process"? Let me ask you this - do you think "due process" is only in Saddam's interest? Saddam was executed for the deaths of 148 people - who do you think will be held to account to the tens of thousands of others he was never held accountable for? Due you seriously think that Saddam, and a half dozen "old men" massacred thousands of Iraqis with their own hands?

As to the question of U.S. haters - YAWN.

Well I expect nothing else from a person with your veiws except a Yawn. Its the only intelligent thing that you have to say.

Those half a dozen 'old men' were quite powerful younger men at the time they ordered the innocent to be murdered. Saddam Hussien has had a hand in 100's of deaths for which there is no recoverable evidence to tie him to.
Im not saying that we can catch every peace of sh it that has killed in Iraq, but he can and is the poster boy for all the killers that acted out his orders.

Im not going to try and get you to agree with me, that wont happen. I will however correct you over the poo that you are speaking in relation to Saddam's conviction and execution.

Well apparently there are with the near50-50 split on both questions. But how would it be a poll if you only had one choice? I see it more as a true/false then multiple choice. Makes sense to me...but then I'm weird...just ask the mena crew like Jenn.

being that its a *pick all that apply* poll, I chose all possible answers

Ok, I think that everyone that doesn't understand what people are saying about the the multiple choice thing should go and try to set up a poll. Note the box when it asks you to enter the various choices. If you check that box (enabling multiple choice), the user can select all answers that apply. Such a poll question might be, "Which of the following foods do you like?" The user can choose more than one answer. If that box is not checked, the user can only select one answer. That is what one would normally use for a question with a yes or no answer. Please just go try it!

Sigh.

nope, i got it perfectly, the poll-maker didnt get what people were saying when the words *multiple choice* came into play. You got the point though, you can choose multiple answers. I was just bein a smartie based on the previous misunderstanding.

I got that you got it!

cheeky jenn

Then can I ask again why you are seeking "a spectrum" of opinion, if all you are going to do is rubbish the contributions?

The mass murders were the work of the regime - the regime being composed not only of its leaders (at the top) but who's laws and directives were enforced and upheld by various government institutions - the police, the "secret" police, the armed forces and the civilians who collaborated with them. Many many people are responsible for those crimes, not just the leaders.

But that's ok - because you're happy that one old man is dangling from the end of the rope. Does the phrase "big picture" mean anything?

Jenn, the dude won't get it!

I don't like the use of the word retard either...I am a Special Education teacher and that word has been used to describe students in SPED for years...this is why *I* don't like it. Has nothing at all to do with being secular, progressive, or whatever. You might look over your spelling too, since you appear to enjoy hurling insults back and forth...as a teacher this is one of my pet peeves.

Arguing over the semantics of this thread is a bit childish, don't you think? And don't give me the "he started it" crap.

it is childish. usually I can spell my intent was to see the different thoughts of VJ members. I have done that with a bit of disagreement to go with that also. everyone on this thread and many others a valuble for their opinions.

cheers

No you are wrong.
Multiple choice means that there is MULTIPLE answers to choose from. You are to make one choice as your answer. It doesn't matter where the question is asked Multiple choice is Multiple choice.

On VJ, the multiple setting option applies to each question individually. Even in a poll with only one question, if you set it as multiple choice, the software will allow you to select >1 answers. On a poll with > 1 question, if set as multiple choice, the software will allow you to select > 1 answer for each question.

now where is that head bonker???

I agree. Lots of people agree with that. Not all of the U.S. is Kansas! (sorry Charles)

And to the OP: WTF? Are you high?

I have been thinking about my opinion on this issue for a week or so. I have been hearing different things on the news, from people I see, out and about etc. From the "oh he died like such a brave man afterall when they taunted him...", to the "hope he rots in hell.." comments.

So how I feel may not be so nice but I'm being honest. I am not 100% pro death penalty, but I am not totally against it either. It's hard for me to decide. I have zero sympathy for Saddam and I am tired of people saying that he died like a real man, because people were taunting him when he died and he yelled at them. So what?

This is where I am not so nice about it. He terrorized so many people and families while he was the leader, and was found guilty of killing many and would have gone to trial over killing many many more. He cared nothing of the families he terrorized, nothing of how they would feel when they heard their loved one was killed. Cared nothing about how someone was killed, if it was extremely painful, etc. Yet because people taunted him before he died, and he didn't fight back supposedly, he is a great man?? Even though I don't really believe in "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" , I do believe that what you reap what you sow. Did he apologize to any families for what he did? I don't know about it, if he did. Did he show mercy when others needed mercy? No. But now just because he didn't argue back with the taunters, he died "like a real man"? Sorry I don't buy it. If he asked for forgiveness from God and from the people he terrorized, that would be different. I don't want anyone to rot in hell, I believe everyone gets the chance to ask for forgiveness. But he was the most defiant idiot in court. For those of you who don't think he received a fair trial, even in the fairest of trials he would still act like an arrogant yelling man during them. Did he ever accept that he did these horrible things? Or did he die as an arrogant man, still denying he did anything wrong? So that's my ramble about it.

I think he went to his death as an arrogant man. His final words- "God is Great" could be seen as an admission that he is powerless, but I suspect it was a defiant act to those tauting him as if to say "I am right". just my impression though.

The problem as i see it is that the taunters made it look less like an act of justice and more an act of vengence.

I agree on that point. But, he still would have died either way.

Exactly the point - the taunting made Saddam look dignified, and the government releasing an official tape with no sound makes it look like they covered it up.

Saddam probably should have been executed but only after a fair trial - in which his guilt for all the crimes was established. Incidentally, the court dropped the charges that were pending against him in the second trial. On paper at least - what does that suggest? That he didn't do it? That he wasn't involved....? I don't think either of us believes that.

The only objection I have to this is that a flawed trial will inevitably make it much more difficult to prosecute other members of the regime who actually carried out the atrocities. Anecdotal information seems to suggest that most of the people who were in place at the grass roots level under Saddam are now back in their old jobs. behaving pretty much as before, albeit under the auspices of a new regime, which has yet to prove itself.

I saw an interview with the late Frank Herbert the other week, where he said that he didn't entirely believe in the adage 'power corrupts' but rather he thought that 'power attracts the already corrupt'. It remains to be seen I think whether the new 'democratic' regime of Iraq will prove to be beneficial both to the Iraqi people and to the interests of the West as a whole or whether they will pursue policies of 'self-interest'.