I totally agree. Killing someone else is always wrong. Suicide is another matter, but that's ot here. Everyone should have the right to live like they want as long as it doesn't harm others.
Eye for eye, tooth for tooth and then what we have?
I totally agree. Killing someone else is always wrong. Suicide is another matter, but that's ot here. Everyone should have the right to live like they want as long as it doesn't harm others.
Eye for eye, tooth for tooth and then what we have?
Breizh,
TBO I can't really give you any easy answers. I'm not a lawyer, a criminal psycologist, a priest, an historian, or an accountant. Also, at the end of the day, neither am I strictly for nor against capital punishment. People like Saddam... I mean, who knows? :guilty: But let's face it- people hang/burn/get rid of other people for all sorts of reasons, and some of those reasons- when you actually have the vantage of being able to look back on things, have been pretty dubious. In the middle ages, you were gotten rid of if you were a witch, or even presumed to be one. I guess those people felt pretty justified in their actions, they thought they were being reasonable, but by today's reasoning, that's just absurd. I guess what I'm trying to get at is- reason, or what we think is reasonable, isn't something which is always going to be immutable, or eternally correct- and oftentimes there's more fuzzy emotionalism lurking around/beneath our cool reasoning than we would care to admit.
When you're dealing with a life and death issue such as this, you should be moving as slowly as possible. Deciding to terminate someone's life on the basis of the reasonable argument that it's costing society money by keeping him around... to me, that's absurd. By that reasoning, why not get rid of the dole kids, or the elderly as well? They're quite a burden you know. And there's lots more of them- Saddam's just one guy. !
Ok, well, I guess I'm now getting a bit unreasonable, I just wanted to share my little bit. Again, I'm not for or against capital punishment. I just wanted to say... it's messy. This whole thing is not reasonable. Saddam is not reasonable. Capital punishment isn't reasonable. So, don't pretend you're being reasonable. MMmmmkay?
there died less people under the dictatorship of saddam then under the occupation of the allied forces. Thats a Fact.
Nice observation, you may as well elaborate?
Saddam was killing people since the early ninetys. That is what I heard from CNN. Since the US began fighting in Iraq, this website says that there have been 50,000 civilian casualties. However, if you read the fine print, that website says that this is the TOTAL DEATHS from terrorists shooting civilians, terrorists bombing civilians, and also criminals murdering people. You may have seen a website similar to this, and read it at face value instead of reading further down the page and clicking a link.
Why we'd have a bunch of blind toothless people that felt vindicated.
Here in Texas we have an old saying, "some folks just need killin".
And if you don't understand that, then there's really not alot I can say
any which way about it.
But actually that's really beyond the point. Saddam's crimes he was brought to trial on were against Iraqis. So it really just should be the Iraqis business as to what to do with him.
In the short term, his execution may mean a flare up from some Sunni factions, but it doesn't weigh out nearly enough as to what would happen if they were to give him life and he escaped.
Here in Houston, an Iraqi exile said that he thought they should keep him alive long enough to be brought to trial for all the other crimes he committed. He said as a means to give some sort of closure to the
surviving victims - then execute him. (I think he was a criminal pschyciatrist...figures)
I notice that this thread is turning more into a capital punishment debate
instead of all that about Saddam. And it really is a good one.
I dunno Capital punishment is big thing. I don't think it is brutal, I don't think it should be done as a cost effective measure either. I mean if that was the case breizh, Why draw the line at murders? How about for those idiots on the cell phone in the car in front of you?
The cost of living sure would be cheaper without them losers screwing things up. (lol actually that might be a good idea)
But what if somebody made a mistake? People make mistakes and
right now there's a investigation if an inmate executed a few years ago was truly innocent of the crime. And it's a nasty investigation... looks like outright consiracy to commit murder to me since the real victim seemingly got the needle. I think if you're going to execute people, then tampering with any of the procedures or evidence to porposely get a guilty verdict also should be a capital offense.
you know a funny thing is when there is an execution here, it's not considered to be public, since they don't actually show the execution.
In fact, it's gets a little airplay on tv and that's about it. but sometimes
one is little more prolific than the others and the grounds outside the prisons are a three ring circus on game day. LOL you got your candle holders on the left and the gun toting goat ropers on the right, each one there I think to just out yell the other one. neither side has any real clue of who this guy is or why he's getting executed other than what they read somewhere. But they're out there hollering away anyways.
Yeah, that part, that part I think is the barbaric medeival part.
Anyways if y'all are interested, here's an article on that case I was talking about
http://www.chron.com/disp/stor ... metropolitan/3472872.html
This thread about Saddam seems to revolve around the validity of the death sentence as a lawful sentence. However, lets's look back at a bit if history.
Remember the oil embargo era (1970s)? All OPEC members refused to sell oil to America. All BUT Saddam. He sold oil from his own country to the Americans while the rest of the middle east did otherwise. In fact, he was an American Ally for quite a while.
Ironic, isn't it, that the superpower he supported turned against him and sentenced him to death. Hmmm...
Remember the oil embargo era (1970s)? All OPEC members refused to sell oil to America. All BUT Saddam. He sold oil from his own country to the Americans while the rest of the middle east did otherwise. In fact, he was an American Ally for quite a while.
Ironic, isn't it, that the superpower he supported turned against him and sentenced him to death. Hmmm...
It was not the Ameriacans who issued the sentance, President Bush publicley announced he was against Sadams death sentance.
Ummm - Correct me if I'm wrong but -
a: The US put the Baath party into power and firmly supported Saddam during nearly all of his presidency.
b: The US ( & Europe ) provided Saddam with his weapons, including chemical & biological weapons.
c: The US firmly supported his acts of genocide against the Iraqi people, the Kurds and anyone else he felt like killing.
d: Saddams trial was controlled by the US and Saddam was ONLY tried for one act of genocide of about 120 people.
e: At no time were points a, b, or c allowed to be raised at his trial. See point d.
f: His sentance is announced just before the US election. See point d.
And Georgy Boy is firmly opposed to the death penalty ???
Since when, certainly not when he was govenor of Texas when he killed more prisoners than anyone else had managed.
And I'm sure that the massive number of Iraqi's that have been killed as a direct result of either American sanctions, illegal invasion, or the civil war that the Americans have now succeded in creating in Iraq feel really good that America is now punishing Saddam for not toeing the party line and getting idea's above his station. ( US Lapdog )
illepall
a: The US put the Baath party into power and firmly supported Saddam during nearly all of his presidency.
b: The US ( & Europe ) provided Saddam with his weapons, including chemical & biological weapons.
c: The US firmly supported his acts of genocide against the Iraqi people, the Kurds and anyone else he felt like killing.
d: Saddams trial was controlled by the US and Saddam was ONLY tried for one act of genocide of about 120 people.
e: At no time were points a, b, or c allowed to be raised at his trial. See point d.
f: His sentance is announced just before the US election. See point d.
And Georgy Boy is firmly opposed to the death penalty ???
Since when, certainly not when he was govenor of Texas when he killed more prisoners than anyone else had managed.
And I'm sure that the massive number of Iraqi's that have been killed as a direct result of either American sanctions, illegal invasion, or the civil war that the Americans have now succeded in creating in Iraq feel really good that America is now punishing Saddam for not toeing the party line and getting idea's above his station. ( US Lapdog )
illepallOK
a: Nope. Like most despots, he pretty much shot his way through the ranks
b: Yep, sure did. so did the Soviets. It was called the cold war. And we flipped flopped a little when Iran went fundeMENTAList theocracy. DIdn't really have a choice.
c: are you on drugs?
d: ehh more like the US oversaw the proceedings. Our Government wanted to insure that the court case was sound and not a lol "Kangaroo" court - in a vain attempt to appease people like you dude.
e: see point c
f: nice try
but I think that was more of coincidence than anything.Besides, since you're so knowlegable about US politics then you should know republicans are screwing up left & right at all levels of government.
From local prosecuting attorneys trying to pick up teen age boys on the net to congressmen up to their necks on indictment threats.
No the bit about George Jr. ain't true either, I think he's just got the record
for the past five govenors. And those govenors were in power when when the people that were executed under Bush's watch were just going to trial for their offenses. Capital cases drag on for years, sometimes decades.
And the Govenor really can't do a whole lot about an execution anyways,
the person being executed has done went through a lengthy appeals process and after the Supreme court.... well...
And for the last bit, I have to admit something. You're absolutely right.
I mean Remember Roswell? Well if you live less than 1000 miles away from it, you hear subliminal messages from the aliens that live there. That's why there are soo many illegal immigrants - not for jobs, but because they live so close to the border, they are drawn to the messages. I can't tell you
what the messages are. the entire populations of the states of Texas New Mexico, Arizona, Oklahoma And Colorado have taken an oath not to divulge the secret. But there is a more powerful agenda at work and Kennedy and Elvis didn't listen, neither did Saddam.
In his five years as governor of Texas, the state has executed 131 prisoners -- far more than any other state. Mr. Bush has lately granted a stay of execution for the first time, for a DNA test.
In answer to questions about that record, Governor Bush has repeatedly said that he has no qualms. "I'm confident," he said last February, "that every person that has been put to death in Texas under my watch has been guilty of the crime charged, and has had full access to the courts."
That defense of the record ignores many notorious examples of unfairness in Texas death penalty cases. Lawyers have been under the influence of cocaine during the trial, or been drunk or asleep. One court dismissed a complaint about a lawyer who slept through a trial with the comment that courts are not "obligated to either constantly monitor trial counsel's wakefulness or endeavor to wake counsel should he fall asleep."
This past week The Chicago Tribune published a compelling report on an investigation of all 131 death cases in Governor Bush's time. It made chilling reading.
In one-third of those cases, the report showed, the lawyer who represented the death penalty defendant at trial or on appeal had been or was later disbarred or otherwise sanctioned. In 40 cases the lawyers presented no evidence at all or only one witness at the sentencing phase of the trial.
In 29 cases, the prosecution used testimony from a psychiatrist who -- based on a hypothetical question about the defendant's past -- predicted he would commit future violence. Most of those psychiatrists testified without having examined the defendant: a practice condemned professionally as unethical.
Other witnesses included one who was temporarily released from a psychiatric ward to testify, a pathologist who had admitted faking autopsies and a judge who had been reprimanded for lying about his credentials.
Asked about the Tribune study, Governor Bush said, "We've adequately answered innocence or guilt" in every case. The defendants, he said, "had full access to a fair trial."
While we agree to disagree over this I do suggest that you at least have a look at the points I've raised, they're all documented and a 10 minuete google search will confirm what I've said.
Please don't just rely on the US media for your information, it is a trifle prone to being one sided.
I'm not going to read through most of this thread, but I will say this: Saddam deserves worse than a hanging. I am of the populus that believes you should get what you give.
I am sick to death of hearing about how some child rapist serial killer who has killed 8 children after raping them has been let out of jail on parole because of 'good behaviour,' only to go out and rape and kill 8 more. If anyone here denies the fact that Saddam would continue to torture and kill more of his (and even other) people, than they are either ignorant, or just plain stupid.
Flame me as you wish, I don't care.
I am sick to death of hearing about how some child rapist serial killer who has killed 8 children after raping them has been let out of jail on parole because of 'good behaviour,' only to go out and rape and kill 8 more. If anyone here denies the fact that Saddam would continue to torture and kill more of his (and even other) people, than they are either ignorant, or just plain stupid.
Flame me as you wish, I don't care.
Send him into space as an experimental test subject... or use him to obtain data on allergic reactions to makeup... Maybe someone could shoot him out of a cannon (for fun). Hangings are just plain boring 
This is one of the most intelligent reviews of the case that I have read, written by an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, yes, he's an American.
However people feel about the death penalty the points here are well worth thinking about.
By Paul Craig Roberts
11-7-6 The show trial of Saddam Hussein was drawn out until two days before the midterm US elections. The death sentence imposed on the former Iraqi president may help the deluded band of Bush supporters find victory in the defeat that Bush has met in Iraq and motivate them to support the beleaguered Republicans on November 7.
But Saddam's sentence will do nothing for reconciliation and peace among Iraq's Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites. In Iraq the sentence is seen by all parties as revenge for the years of Sunni rule. Saddam's sentence is perfectly timed to drive the rising sectarian conflict, which is already causing 100 or more Iraqi deaths per day, over the brink into full scale civil war. Indeed, one could conclude that the real purpose of the sentence is to achieve the neoconservative goal of a dismembered and impotent Iraq.
Saddam was sentenced to death because 148 Shiites were killed in 1982 in the Iraqi government's response to an attempted assassination of Saddam. We have no way of knowing how many, if any, of the 148 were involved in the assassination attempt, or whether the botched attempt was a "black ops" event to enable the police to settle local scores or to take out potential trouble-makers. The killings, however, do not fit the propaganda picture of Saddam gratuitously killing people for the fun of it.
Now that the Bush administration has adopted the torture and detention practices of Saddam's regime, one wonders what would be the fate of Americans accused of an assassination plot against a US president?
Saddam's trial itself is suspect. The most qualified lawyer in the courtroom, former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, was ejected from the trial for handing Judge Abdul-Rahman a memo in which he said the trial was a "travesty" of law. I am confident that Ramsey Clark has more integrity than Abdul-Rahman. But, to get to the main point, let us assume that Saddam is guilty as charged and that his death so serves the cause of justice that it is worth heightened sectarian conflict and even full-fledged civil war.
What did Saddam do that Bush, and Cheney, and Rumsfeld, and Blair have not done? If Saddam can be sentenced to death for his responsibility in the killing of 148 Shiites, what about Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Blair's responsibility for the tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians slaughtered by Bush's invasion of Iraq? This massive carnage is the direct consequence of an illegal invasion--a war crime in itself for which Nazi leaders were sentenced to death--that was based on lies and deception. Bush himself admits that 30,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed. Iraq Body Count puts the civilian deaths at between 45,000 and 50,000. The recent Johns Hopkins University study published in the peer-reviewed British medical journal, The Lancet (11 Oct, 2006), puts the Iraqi civilian deaths caused by Bush's invasion as high as 655,000. What does the world think of American hypocrisy when the US government, drowning in the blood of tens of thousands of its innocent victims, cries "justice" as the president of Iraq is sentenced to death for killing 148 people for trying to assassinate him? The verdict against Saddam was influenced by the propaganda of mass graves uncovered by the US-led invasion and seized upon as justification for that illegal invasion. However, as various experts have pointed out, the graves are those of war dead from the Iraq-Iran war. The US government has responsibility for these deaths also, as Washington gave aid to both sides in the bloody conflict that is believed to have claimed as many as one million lives.
Now that Saddam Hussein has been held accountable for his crimes, can we look forward to accountability for George W. Bush, Tony Blair, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, John Bolton, Kenneth Adelman, Michael Rubin, Eliot Cohen, and their propagandists in the media, such as Billy Kristol, Victor Davis Hanson, Robert Kagan, David Frum, the Wall St Journal editorial writers, the editors of National Review and the New York Times, and the Fox "News" talking heads? Will accountability be extended to the conservative foundations and think tanks that financed the neoconservative takeover of the Republican Party and Bush administration?
Now that the American invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan have ended in defeat, those most responsible for the destruction of those two countries, tens of thousands of deaths, and a bill for US taxpayers in excess of $2 trillion (according to Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz) are running from any responsibility. Richard Perle, the principle instigator of the illegal invasions, declared to Vanity Fair (Nov. 3, 2006): "Huge mistakes were made, and I want to be very clear on this: They were not made by neoconservatives, who had almost no voice in what happened." "At the end of the day," Perle told ABC News' Karen Mooney (Nov. 4, 2006), "you have to hold the president responsible."
Kenneth Adelman, who promised us a "cakewalk war," now puts all the blame on Rumsfeld: "He certainly fooled me" (Vanity Fair, Nov. 3). The neoconservatives, of course, are trying to escape blame for the defeat of their strategy by accusing Bush and Rumsfeld of incompetent implementation. Will the neoconservatives escape responsibility for launching the wars that have turned the United States into a war criminal abroad and a police state at home?
Paul Craig Roberts wrote the Kemp-Roth bill and was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is author or coauthor of eight books, including The Supply-Side Revolutin (Harvard University Press). He has held numerous academic appointments, including the William E. Simon Chair in Political Economy, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University and Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He has contributed to numerous scholar journals and testified before Congress on 30 occasions. He has been awarded the U.S. Treasury's Meritorious Service Award and the French Legion of Honor. He was a reviewer for the Journal of Political Economy under editor Robert Mundell. He can be reached at: [email protected]
However people feel about the death penalty the points here are well worth thinking about.
By Paul Craig Roberts
11-7-6 The show trial of Saddam Hussein was drawn out until two days before the midterm US elections. The death sentence imposed on the former Iraqi president may help the deluded band of Bush supporters find victory in the defeat that Bush has met in Iraq and motivate them to support the beleaguered Republicans on November 7.
But Saddam's sentence will do nothing for reconciliation and peace among Iraq's Kurds, Sunnis, and Shiites. In Iraq the sentence is seen by all parties as revenge for the years of Sunni rule. Saddam's sentence is perfectly timed to drive the rising sectarian conflict, which is already causing 100 or more Iraqi deaths per day, over the brink into full scale civil war. Indeed, one could conclude that the real purpose of the sentence is to achieve the neoconservative goal of a dismembered and impotent Iraq.
Saddam was sentenced to death because 148 Shiites were killed in 1982 in the Iraqi government's response to an attempted assassination of Saddam. We have no way of knowing how many, if any, of the 148 were involved in the assassination attempt, or whether the botched attempt was a "black ops" event to enable the police to settle local scores or to take out potential trouble-makers. The killings, however, do not fit the propaganda picture of Saddam gratuitously killing people for the fun of it.
Now that the Bush administration has adopted the torture and detention practices of Saddam's regime, one wonders what would be the fate of Americans accused of an assassination plot against a US president?
Saddam's trial itself is suspect. The most qualified lawyer in the courtroom, former U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark, was ejected from the trial for handing Judge Abdul-Rahman a memo in which he said the trial was a "travesty" of law. I am confident that Ramsey Clark has more integrity than Abdul-Rahman. But, to get to the main point, let us assume that Saddam is guilty as charged and that his death so serves the cause of justice that it is worth heightened sectarian conflict and even full-fledged civil war.
What did Saddam do that Bush, and Cheney, and Rumsfeld, and Blair have not done? If Saddam can be sentenced to death for his responsibility in the killing of 148 Shiites, what about Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Blair's responsibility for the tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians slaughtered by Bush's invasion of Iraq? This massive carnage is the direct consequence of an illegal invasion--a war crime in itself for which Nazi leaders were sentenced to death--that was based on lies and deception. Bush himself admits that 30,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed. Iraq Body Count puts the civilian deaths at between 45,000 and 50,000. The recent Johns Hopkins University study published in the peer-reviewed British medical journal, The Lancet (11 Oct, 2006), puts the Iraqi civilian deaths caused by Bush's invasion as high as 655,000. What does the world think of American hypocrisy when the US government, drowning in the blood of tens of thousands of its innocent victims, cries "justice" as the president of Iraq is sentenced to death for killing 148 people for trying to assassinate him? The verdict against Saddam was influenced by the propaganda of mass graves uncovered by the US-led invasion and seized upon as justification for that illegal invasion. However, as various experts have pointed out, the graves are those of war dead from the Iraq-Iran war. The US government has responsibility for these deaths also, as Washington gave aid to both sides in the bloody conflict that is believed to have claimed as many as one million lives.
Now that Saddam Hussein has been held accountable for his crimes, can we look forward to accountability for George W. Bush, Tony Blair, Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, John Bolton, Kenneth Adelman, Michael Rubin, Eliot Cohen, and their propagandists in the media, such as Billy Kristol, Victor Davis Hanson, Robert Kagan, David Frum, the Wall St Journal editorial writers, the editors of National Review and the New York Times, and the Fox "News" talking heads? Will accountability be extended to the conservative foundations and think tanks that financed the neoconservative takeover of the Republican Party and Bush administration?
Now that the American invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan have ended in defeat, those most responsible for the destruction of those two countries, tens of thousands of deaths, and a bill for US taxpayers in excess of $2 trillion (according to Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz) are running from any responsibility. Richard Perle, the principle instigator of the illegal invasions, declared to Vanity Fair (Nov. 3, 2006): "Huge mistakes were made, and I want to be very clear on this: They were not made by neoconservatives, who had almost no voice in what happened." "At the end of the day," Perle told ABC News' Karen Mooney (Nov. 4, 2006), "you have to hold the president responsible."
Kenneth Adelman, who promised us a "cakewalk war," now puts all the blame on Rumsfeld: "He certainly fooled me" (Vanity Fair, Nov. 3). The neoconservatives, of course, are trying to escape blame for the defeat of their strategy by accusing Bush and Rumsfeld of incompetent implementation. Will the neoconservatives escape responsibility for launching the wars that have turned the United States into a war criminal abroad and a police state at home?
Paul Craig Roberts wrote the Kemp-Roth bill and was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is author or coauthor of eight books, including The Supply-Side Revolutin (Harvard University Press). He has held numerous academic appointments, including the William E. Simon Chair in Political Economy, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Georgetown University and Senior Research Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University. He has contributed to numerous scholar journals and testified before Congress on 30 occasions. He has been awarded the U.S. Treasury's Meritorious Service Award and the French Legion of Honor. He was a reviewer for the Journal of Political Economy under editor Robert Mundell. He can be reached at: [email protected]
Anyone knows where I can watch Saddam`s hanging Live?
I heard that they want to execute him in this year, probably today
I heard that they want to execute him in this year, probably today
Yea I heard it too. Seems that hanging video hasn`t been realeased yet.
I saw him get the hanging thing on, and when he was dead.
When he got it on he yelled "God is big"
and he died when they dropped him, broke his neck.
Thats all i know !
When he got it on he yelled "God is big"
and he died when they dropped him, broke his neck.
Thats all i know !
I think saddam was the only man who could keep iraq in one piece and make it a less dangerous place.Now he's executed and it will only make things worse. Murderers and serial killers should be executed, they don't deserve to live.But in this case, he could have been used to rebuild iraq as a better place.
I hope i'm wrong.
I hope i'm wrong.
illepall yes you are wrong... well IMHO, you are entitled to your own of course
I don't want to get all political and I don't know how you look at the whole Kurdish situation but there are Kurdish refugees living in my street, and I have heard stories from them that make you sick to your stomach..
And we've all seen the photos of the mangled bodies of innocent men, women and children, gassed to death..
In 1988 alone, he murdered (well, ordered the killings) of 182.000 Kurds, and he burnt more than 4000 villages to the ground.. (source: wiki, not made up by myself)
This is only a small part of the sick and diabolical stuff that happend under his regime... And people claim he does not deserve to die? Hanging is barbaric? as opposed to gassing babies???
I'd say he got the easy way out. I am not a fan of death sentences, but some people just deserve to die for what they did, and this is one of those cases, though I respect the opinions of those that do not agree.
There's video of the preparation on YouTube and news channels, and a grainy vid of his body in a morgue on Liveleak.com, but the actual hanging hasn't been released/shown.
I am sure Bush is happy, damn monkey.....
I really feel like making a political cartoon where Saddam is being executed by an overdose of McDonalds.
I really feel like making a political cartoon where Saddam is being executed by an overdose of McDonalds.
In Saddam's Iraq, McDonalds eats YOU!
(with apologies to Yakov Smirnoff)
(with apologies to Yakov Smirnoff)
....and on that note; guy's les not forget this is they way Sadam's people deal with crime.It's wrong.
Anyone wanna see the hanging?. Viewer discretion is advised of course. and NWS.
Removed: SamH
Removed: SamH
Davo, I thought I was pretty clear in the last thread you took part in on this subject. We can leave the videos out of it, thanks.
(thisnameistaken)
DELETED
by thisnameistaken
Saddam Hussain has been sentenced to death
(106 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG