If the war is fraud...based on lies, and if Kerry is elected...

[GoPackGo]

...will he do the right thing and reinstate Saddam Hussein as Iraq's legitimate ruler.

If not...then, as president he will be perpetuating and supporting the lies.

I say President Kerry's first act as President is to announce to the Baath Party people that Saddam is returning and his country will be restored at US Expense.

Since no violations have been found...all sanctions will be lifted and all troops will be withdrawn.

This is not a joke.

If removing Saddam from power was not the just and right thing to do, then he should be restored to power as soon as possible....it would be the right, just and correct thing to do.

Then also, in all seriousness, shouldn't Bush and all senior staff members and those in power in Congress be turned over to Iraq or the World Court to be prosecuted for War Crimes?

 

[Insane3D]

<- For you.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: Insane3D

<- For you.

I would love a serious reply...as this is a very serious question

As Kerry and Co. make serious accusations against the President, then they need to be prepared to answer this question.

Doesn't Saddam have any legal rights or any legal recourse if he removal from power was fraudulent?

 

[smashp]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
...will he do the right thing and reinstate Saddam Hussein as Iraq's legitimate ruler.

If not...then, as president he will be perpetuating and supporting the lies.

I say President Kerry's first act as President is to announce to the Baath Party people that Saddam is returning and his country will be restored at US Expense.

Since no violations have been found...all sanctions will be lifted and all troops will be withdrawn.

This is not a joke.

If removing Saddam from power was not the just and right thing to do, then he should be restored to power as soon as possible....it would be the right, just and correct thing to do.

Then also, in all seriousness, shouldn't Bush and all senior staff members and those in power in Congress be turned over to Iraq or the World Court to be prosecuted for War Crimes?

You fail to understand that the "Lying" portion of the argument made, was our Justification of the War. Our "Credability" as a nation is on the fence. The Invasion was "Legal" as outlined within the recourse available under security council resolutions. The War is not "justified" as nessasary if we use a litmus test based on reasons givin to the public prior to the War/ The public WAS manipulated to reach the Goal of Invading Iraq. Once that deed is Done their is No going Back. What is possible is to make people aware of the power of manipulation used to acheive this goal, To learn from Mistakes.
To prevent this from happening in the Future, To REGAIN US CREDABILITY.

Since Saddam is ousted he should be tried, as he is a War criminal.


"Doesn't Saddam have any legal rights or any legal recourse if he removal from power was fraudulent?"


In What Court?

The Need and importance of this War Was not Justified. We were not under threat. We wish to remold the middle East and secure a new base of operations within. A few of the After-war results are (capture of Saddam, O and Q) perceived as justified and Normal.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: smashp

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
...will he do the right thing and reinstate Saddam Hussein as Iraq's legitimate ruler.

If not...then, as president he will be perpetuating and supporting the lies.

I say President Kerry's first act as President is to announce to the Baath Party people that Saddam is returning and his country will be restored at US Expense.

Since no violations have been found...all sanctions will be lifted and all troops will be withdrawn.

This is not a joke.

If removing Saddam from power was not the just and right thing to do, then he should be restored to power as soon as possible....it would be the right, just and correct thing to do.

Then also, in all seriousness, shouldn't Bush and all senior staff members and those in power in Congress be turned over to Iraq or the World Court to be prosecuted for War Crimes?

You fail to understand that the "Lying" portion of the argument made, was our Justification of the War. Our "Credability" as a nation is on the fence. The Invasion was "Legal" as outlined within the recourse available under security council resolutions. The War is not "justified" as nessasary if we use a litmus test based on reasons givin to the public prior to the War/ The public WAS manipulated to reach the Goal of Invading Iraq. Once that deed is Done their is No going Back. What is possible is to make people aware of the power of manipulation used to acheive this goal, To learn from Mistakes.
To prevent this from happening in the Future, To REGAIN US CREDABILITY.

Since Saddam is ousted he should be tried, as he is a War criminal.


"Doesn't Saddam have any legal rights or any legal recourse if he removal from power was fraudulent?"


In What Court?

The Need and importance of this War Was not Justified. We were not under threat. We wish to remold the middle East and secure a new base of operations within. A few of the After-war results are (capture of Saddam, O and Q) perceived as justified and Normal.

Why is there no going back? Why should Saddam suffer at our mistakes? Hasn't he been exhonorated? The UN resolutions were also based on lies and so therefore the war was illegal.

So if the war was not needed, not justifed then what we did was wrong. You can't just do harm to someone that is the legitimate ruler to a sovereign nation and get away with it. He should duly be compensated...with a return to power...

Saddam is in US Custody...not Iraqi, not UN...so therefore the US should release him into the custody of his restored government.

I say we as a nation have no choice, and to regain credibility, must restore Saddam...it is the right thing to do.

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: Insane3D

<- For you.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: Spencer278

Originally posted by: Insane3D

<- For you.

:lips: <- For you

 

[smashp]

There is no going back Because The actions We took were an extension of the Peace treaty Saddam Signed after iraq war part 1. We Were Justified, on paper atleast.

IT Was an optional War. That is the part you cannot grasp, Their is no returning Saddam to power, as he was and is a 'BAD' Man. Now if he was largely loved By his people, Their might be soom demand from Them to return their leader to power. But since the overwhelming majority of Iraqis hated him......who cares.

Yet, We Shall not let those who pulled us into this episode of american history Off easy for the manipulation of the public using Lies, fear, and patriotism to Suppress The VOICED opposition there was stating the Truth.

They must Pay the Piper and no longer deserve the power they have come so addicted to and use without moraloty or remourse.

 

[XZeroII]

I like you name I assume you are a Packer fan too

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: smashp
There is no going back Because The actions We took were an extension of the Peace treaty Saddam Signed after iraq war part 1. We Were Justified, on paper atleast.

IT Was an optional War. That is the part you cannot grasp, Their is no returning Saddam to power, as he was and is a 'BAD' Man. Now if he was largely loved By his people, Their might be soom demand from Them to return their leader to power. But since the overwhelming majority of Iraqis hated him......who cares.

Yet, We Shall not let those who pulled us into this episode of american history Off easy for the manipulation of the public using Lies, fear, and patriotism to Suppress The VOICED opposition there was stating the Truth.

They must Pay the Piper and no longer deserve the power they have come so addicted to and use without moraloty or remourse.

You can't have it both ways.

You can't celebrate the ends while demonizing the means.

Who are we to judge Saddam as a "BAD" man when we can't judge our own intelligence correctly.

The war was either justified and right or illegal and wrong. Which is it?

The vocal minority hates Bush, yet what will you do if he is re-elected? Just because there is opposition to a war doesn't mean that a war should not take place.

The war was either right or it was wrong. History will ultimately decide.

 

[Insane3D]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: Insane3D

<- For you.

I would love a serious reply...as this is a very serious question

As Kerry and Co. make serious accusations against the President, then they need to be prepared to answer this question.

Doesn't Saddam have any legal rights or any legal recourse if he removal from power was fraudulent?

What do you want to hear? Seriously?

Yeah, sure...Saddam is innocent..poor guy. We should put him back in his palace and give him lots of money...and we could even ship some spare innocent people we have over there to be massacred in his honor! We've got plenty of them and they will reproduce anyhow.

There. Is that the argument you were looking for?

 

[BugsBunny1078]

No president can be tried for any offical acts while president.That is our law.
Anyhow Bush has opened a can of worms and now Kerry will have to see it thru to the end. Saddamn will be tried by some world court if Kerry is elected.If he is not convicted he will be free to return to Iraq I am sure unless the people there ban him from that.
If they hold elections he will not win and he has too many enemies to stay there while not in power. I doubt he will want to go back.

 

[Spencer278]

I bet Saddam is even smart enough to know that iraq is screwed up and he wouldn't want the postion if it was given to him.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: BugsBunny1078
No president can be tried for any offical acts while president.That is our law.
Anyhow Bush has opened a can of worms and now Kerry will have to see it thru to the end. Saddamn will be tried by some world court if Kerry is elected.If he is not convicted he will be free to return to Iraq I am sure unless the people there ban him from that.
If they hold elections he will not win and he has too many enemies to stay there while not in power. I doubt he will want to go back.

Sure they can...its called impeachment

Maybe the World Court will let Saddam go on legal technicality..."illegal search and siezure"??

There are many mass graves that have proven what happens to the many enemies of Saddam

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: Insane3D

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: Insane3D

<- For you.

I would love a serious reply...as this is a very serious question

As Kerry and Co. make serious accusations against the President, then they need to be prepared to answer this question.

Doesn't Saddam have any legal rights or any legal recourse if he removal from power was fraudulent?

What do you want to hear? Seriously?

Yeah, sure...Saddam is innocent..poor guy. We should put him back in his palace and give him lots of money...and we could even ship some spare innocent people we have over there to be massacred in his honor! We've got plenty of them and they will reproduce anyhow.

There. Is that the argument you were looking for?

What do I want to hear? If Saddam is not guilty of what we went to war for...shouldn't he be returned to power?

You said -> "We've got plenty of them and they will reproduce anyhow." A little communist/marxist in the old blood?

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: smashp

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
...will he do the right thing and reinstate Saddam Hussein as Iraq's legitimate ruler.

If not...then, as president he will be perpetuating and supporting the lies.

I say President Kerry's first act as President is to announce to the Baath Party people that Saddam is returning and his country will be restored at US Expense.

Since no violations have been found...all sanctions will be lifted and all troops will be withdrawn.

This is not a joke.

If removing Saddam from power was not the just and right thing to do, then he should be restored to power as soon as possible....it would be the right, just and correct thing to do.

Then also, in all seriousness, shouldn't Bush and all senior staff members and those in power in Congress be turned over to Iraq or the World Court to be prosecuted for War Crimes?

You fail to understand that the "Lying" portion of the argument made, was our Justification of the War. Our "Credability" as a nation is on the fence. The Invasion was "Legal" as outlined within the recourse available under security council resolutions. The War is not "justified" as nessasary if we use a litmus test based on reasons givin to the public prior to the War/ The public WAS manipulated to reach the Goal of Invading Iraq. Once that deed is Done their is No going Back. What is possible is to make people aware of the power of manipulation used to acheive this goal, To learn from Mistakes.
To prevent this from happening in the Future, To REGAIN US CREDABILITY.

Since Saddam is ousted he should be tried, as he is a War criminal.


"Doesn't Saddam have any legal rights or any legal recourse if he removal from power was fraudulent?"


In What Court?

The Need and importance of this War Was not Justified. We were not under threat. We wish to remold the middle East and secure a new base of operations within. A few of the After-war results are (capture of Saddam, O and Q) perceived as justified and Normal.

Why is there no going back? Why should Saddam suffer at our mistakes? Hasn't he been exhonorated? The UN resolutions were also based on lies and so therefore the war was illegal.

So if the war was not needed, not justifed then what we did was wrong. You can't just do harm to someone that is the legitimate ruler to a sovereign nation and get away with it. He should duly be compensated...with a return to power...

Saddam is in US Custody...not Iraqi, not UN...so therefore the US should release him into the custody of his restored government.

I say we as a nation have no choice, and to regain credibility, must restore Saddam...it is the right thing to do.

LOL... Credibility has never been a hallmark of neocon decisionmaking. They could care less about credibility, otherwise they would have checked their sources before lying to America. The war was not needed, and Iraq is a sovereign nation.

If you really believed in all that justice and credibility and exhoneration and legality, then perhaps we can discuss returning Saddam in the context of an international court. But too much blood has been spilled, and it would be an acknowledgement of the worse military decision America has ever embarked upon, and no presidency would ever consider it because it betrays their credibility.

Unfortunately it's not about right and wrong. It's about who welds the stronger sword. The neocons can now justify just about anything they do, and they are well on their way in accomplishing their final objective - to take the power out of the hands of all Americans and into the hands of those that support and fund them.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: smashp

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
...will he do the right thing and reinstate Saddam Hussein as Iraq's legitimate ruler.

If not...then, as president he will be perpetuating and supporting the lies.

I say President Kerry's first act as President is to announce to the Baath Party people that Saddam is returning and his country will be restored at US Expense.

Since no violations have been found...all sanctions will be lifted and all troops will be withdrawn.

This is not a joke.

If removing Saddam from power was not the just and right thing to do, then he should be restored to power as soon as possible....it would be the right, just and correct thing to do.

Then also, in all seriousness, shouldn't Bush and all senior staff members and those in power in Congress be turned over to Iraq or the World Court to be prosecuted for War Crimes?

You fail to understand that the "Lying" portion of the argument made, was our Justification of the War. Our "Credability" as a nation is on the fence. The Invasion was "Legal" as outlined within the recourse available under security council resolutions. The War is not "justified" as nessasary if we use a litmus test based on reasons givin to the public prior to the War/ The public WAS manipulated to reach the Goal of Invading Iraq. Once that deed is Done their is No going Back. What is possible is to make people aware of the power of manipulation used to acheive this goal, To learn from Mistakes.
To prevent this from happening in the Future, To REGAIN US CREDABILITY.

Since Saddam is ousted he should be tried, as he is a War criminal.


"Doesn't Saddam have any legal rights or any legal recourse if he removal from power was fraudulent?"


In What Court?

The Need and importance of this War Was not Justified. We were not under threat. We wish to remold the middle East and secure a new base of operations within. A few of the After-war results are (capture of Saddam, O and Q) perceived as justified and Normal.

Why is there no going back? Why should Saddam suffer at our mistakes? Hasn't he been exhonorated? The UN resolutions were also based on lies and so therefore the war was illegal.

So if the war was not needed, not justifed then what we did was wrong. You can't just do harm to someone that is the legitimate ruler to a sovereign nation and get away with it. He should duly be compensated...with a return to power...

Saddam is in US Custody...not Iraqi, not UN...so therefore the US should release him into the custody of his restored government.

I say we as a nation have no choice, and to regain credibility, must restore Saddam...it is the right thing to do.

LOL... Credibility has never been a hallmark of neocon decisionmaking. They could care less about credibility, otherwise they would have checked their sources before lying to America. The war was not needed, and Iraq is a sovereign nation.

If you really believed in all that justice and credibility and exhoneration and legality, then perhaps we can discuss returning Saddam in the context of an international court. But too much blood has been spilled, and it would be an acknowledgement of the worse military decision America has ever embarked upon, and no presidency would ever consider it because it betrays their credibility.

Unfortunately it's not about right and wrong. It's about who welds the stronger sword. The neocons can now justify just about anything they do, and they are well on their way in accomplishing their final objective - to take the power out of the hands of all Americans and into the hands of those that support and fund them.

It's not Bush's credibility we are talking about its President Kerry's...The question asks what will HE do!!!

How does President Kerry handle things?

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: smashp

Originally posted by: GoPackGo
...will he do the right thing and reinstate Saddam Hussein as Iraq's legitimate ruler.

If not...then, as president he will be perpetuating and supporting the lies.

I say President Kerry's first act as President is to announce to the Baath Party people that Saddam is returning and his country will be restored at US Expense.

Since no violations have been found...all sanctions will be lifted and all troops will be withdrawn.

This is not a joke.

If removing Saddam from power was not the just and right thing to do, then he should be restored to power as soon as possible....it would be the right, just and correct thing to do.

Then also, in all seriousness, shouldn't Bush and all senior staff members and those in power in Congress be turned over to Iraq or the World Court to be prosecuted for War Crimes?

You fail to understand that the "Lying" portion of the argument made, was our Justification of the War. Our "Credability" as a nation is on the fence. The Invasion was "Legal" as outlined within the recourse available under security council resolutions. The War is not "justified" as nessasary if we use a litmus test based on reasons givin to the public prior to the War/ The public WAS manipulated to reach the Goal of Invading Iraq. Once that deed is Done their is No going Back. What is possible is to make people aware of the power of manipulation used to acheive this goal, To learn from Mistakes.
To prevent this from happening in the Future, To REGAIN US CREDABILITY.

Since Saddam is ousted he should be tried, as he is a War criminal.


"Doesn't Saddam have any legal rights or any legal recourse if he removal from power was fraudulent?"


In What Court?

The Need and importance of this War Was not Justified. We were not under threat. We wish to remold the middle East and secure a new base of operations within. A few of the After-war results are (capture of Saddam, O and Q) perceived as justified and Normal.

Why is there no going back? Why should Saddam suffer at our mistakes? Hasn't he been exhonorated? The UN resolutions were also based on lies and so therefore the war was illegal.

So if the war was not needed, not justifed then what we did was wrong. You can't just do harm to someone that is the legitimate ruler to a sovereign nation and get away with it. He should duly be compensated...with a return to power...

Saddam is in US Custody...not Iraqi, not UN...so therefore the US should release him into the custody of his restored government.

I say we as a nation have no choice, and to regain credibility, must restore Saddam...it is the right thing to do.

LOL... Credibility has never been a hallmark of neocon decisionmaking. They could care less about credibility, otherwise they would have checked their sources before lying to America. The war was not needed, and Iraq is a sovereign nation.

If you really believed in all that justice and credibility and exhoneration and legality, then perhaps we can discuss returning Saddam in the context of an international court. But too much blood has been spilled, and it would be an acknowledgement of the worse military decision America has ever embarked upon, and no presidency would ever consider it because it betrays their credibility.

Unfortunately it's not about right and wrong. It's about who welds the stronger sword. The neocons can now justify just about anything they do, and they are well on their way in accomplishing their final objective - to take the power out of the hands of all Americans and into the hands of those that support and fund them.

LOL, how's that tin-foil hat of yours?

 

[Czar]

its all about what is the best decision, going to war so hastely was obviosly not the best decision because of all the obvios hoppla and extra problems it has created, now doing what GoPackGo proposes that Kerry should do is obviosly a bad decision, best decision is to make the best of the situation and that is to stay as long as it takes.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: Czar
its all about what is the best decision, going to war so hastely was obviosly not the best decision because of all the obvios hoppla and extra problems it has created, now doing what GoPackGo proposes that Kerry should do is obviosly a bad decision, best decision is to make the best of the situation and that is to stay as long as it takes.

Here is a question I pose: Thirteen years of dealing with Saddam Hussein wasn't long enough? How long then?

Using similar logic...the US SHOULD have gone to war with Japan in 1941. We were attacked.

However

We SHOULD NOT have gone to war with Germany or Italy. They did not attack and they posed no "imminent" threat. Why did so many US Soldiers die to fight that cause? Shouldnt that have been a matter for the other Europeans to deal with?

 

[Gaard]

I would love a serious reply

As I would in this thread.

 

[smashp]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: Czar
its all about what is the best decision, going to war so hastely was obviosly not the best decision because of all the obvios hoppla and extra problems it has created, now doing what GoPackGo proposes that Kerry should do is obviosly a bad decision, best decision is to make the best of the situation and that is to stay as long as it takes.

Here is a question I pose: Thirteen years of dealing with Saddam Hussein wasn't long enough? How long then?

Using similar logic...the US SHOULD have gone to war with Japan in 1941. We were attacked.

However

We SHOULD NOT have gone to war with Germany or Italy. They did not attack and they posed no "imminent" threat. Why did so many US Soldiers die to fight that cause? Shouldnt that have been a matter for the other Europeans to deal with?

AHHH thee Of little understanding of History. See Japan, Germany and Italy had this thing called a "Treaty". The "Treaty" made them the Axis Powers. The Writing of this "Treaty" brought other members bound to it to the others Aid in time of War.

So when WE declared War on Japan, Germany DECLARED WAR ON THE USA.

So YOUR Logic concludes that a Declaration of War Against The USA is an example of that they posed no "imminent" threat.

Go open a book before your next botched argument.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: Czar
its all about what is the best decision, going to war so hastely was obviosly not the best decision because of all the obvios hoppla and extra problems it has created, now doing what GoPackGo proposes that Kerry should do is obviosly a bad decision, best decision is to make the best of the situation and that is to stay as long as it takes.

Here is a question I pose: Thirteen years of dealing with Saddam Hussein wasn't long enough? How long then?

Using similar logic...the US SHOULD have gone to war with Japan in 1941. We were attacked.

However

We SHOULD NOT have gone to war with Germany or Italy. They did not attack and they posed no "imminent" threat. Why did so many US Soldiers die to fight that cause? Shouldnt that have been a matter for the other Europeans to deal with?

LOL, Germany declared war against us first. What should we have done, surrender?

 

[smashp]

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: smashp
There is no going back Because The actions We took were an extension of the Peace treaty Saddam Signed after iraq war part 1. We Were Justified, on paper atleast.

IT Was an optional War. That is the part you cannot grasp, Their is no returning Saddam to power, as he was and is a 'BAD' Man. Now if he was largely loved By his people, Their might be soom demand from Them to return their leader to power. But since the overwhelming majority of Iraqis hated him......who cares.

Yet, We Shall not let those who pulled us into this episode of american history Off easy for the manipulation of the public using Lies, fear, and patriotism to Suppress The VOICED opposition there was stating the Truth.

They must Pay the Piper and no longer deserve the power they have come so addicted to and use without moraloty or remourse.

You can't have it both ways.

You can't celebrate the ends while demonizing the means.

Who are we to judge Saddam as a "BAD" man when we can't judge our own intelligence correctly.

The war was either justified and right or illegal and wrong. Which is it?

The vocal minority hates Bush, yet what will you do if he is re-elected? Just because there is opposition to a war doesn't mean that a war should not take place.

The war was either right or it was wrong. History will ultimately decide.

Im not Celebrating the Ends. The End is a Far Far far far far ways away. no i stand by My argument. The War WAS LEGAL yet unjustified.

you can get a legal Search Warrant to Search a House for Drugs(used as Example) search the House, find no Drugs or any trace of them ever being there. This would be a unjustified search.

Capturing Saddam and his sons is like the Cops on the said above search finding an illegal automatic weapon. Yeah its illegal and you can arrest someone for it, BUT ITS NOT THE REASON YOU SEARCHED THE HOUSE.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: GoPackGo

Originally posted by: Czar
its all about what is the best decision, going to war so hastely was obviosly not the best decision because of all the obvios hoppla and extra problems it has created, now doing what GoPackGo proposes that Kerry should do is obviosly a bad decision, best decision is to make the best of the situation and that is to stay as long as it takes.

Here is a question I pose: Thirteen years of dealing with Saddam Hussein wasn't long enough? How long then?

Using similar logic...the US SHOULD have gone to war with Japan in 1941. We were attacked.

However

We SHOULD NOT have gone to war with Germany or Italy. They did not attack and they posed no "imminent" threat. Why did so many US Soldiers die to fight that cause? Shouldnt that have been a matter for the other Europeans to deal with?

LOL, Germany declared war against us first. What should we have done, surrender?

So...just because a country declares war on us, that is a threat? What if the Congo or UAE declared war on the US? Should we launch cruise missles at them?

Since Iraq was attacked in an illegitimate war, and they were in the UN, where were the other UN Nations in coming to the aid of Iraq?