[Robert Drobot]

The vote is being tracked.

[SouthernFreebird]

Git a rope...

[ETERNAL WARMING]

They really work at getting you to say NO!@ Don't give them the satisfaction!



Should Saddam Hussein be executed?

Yes 47 27%
No 127 73%


BTTT BTTT BTTT

[The Great RJ]

The Iraqi people should decide. My bet is that they would quickly decide he should hang.

[Az Joe]

The results are, at this point, absolutely pathetic!

[Brett66]

What kind of screwed up poll is this? They gave me 4-5 reasons why he shouldn't and I had to vote yes after each reason. Did they do this for the no's?

[reagan_fanatic]

Boy, they really try to get you to see their point of view, now don't they???


BTTT

[aruanan]

No. He should be put in the same cell with Manuel Noriega.

[Howie66]

Since when do the junkies, faggots, socialists, and general human(?) debris in San Francisco have anything at all to say about the internal affairs in Iraq? Methinks they are being a bit presumptous.

[al_again]

BIG DEAL!!! Did you read the end - it gives the arguement on both sides depending on how you vote. Besides, this is PBS - who is going to see this but PBS type people (all 200 of em)?

[blam]

FReeped.

[Old Sarge]

Congrats. Anyone voting just gave another Web hit to NPR - the people behind this "poll".

[Redcloak]

I doubt that any Iraqi's get KQED on cable, so it's a bit irrelevant what Babylon-by-the-bay thinks ought to happen in Babylon.

[Redcloak]

Should Saddam Hussein be executed?
Yes	80	39%
No	127	61%

It's getting there...

[Captain Peter Blood]

Given that is has been reported that Saddam has cancer and that it is untreatable, our Doctors found this at the time of his capture, what difference will it make??

If he does have cancer and may well be dead within the space of 18 months, he may never have a trial, and if he does may not be in any condition to participate in it.

This bodes for a very anticlimactic ending of the whole affair.

[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.

[Chani]

for later consumption

[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

[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!

[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!

[weegee]

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