etech is right, LR. If your neighbor shot your wife you should just go next door and kill him. This will teach neighbors not to shoot other people's wives. I mean it's so simple and I'm really big on simple. Even Galt expects better and of course that means simpler.
biostud
Lifer
- Feb 27, 2003
- 20,180
- 7,302
- 136
We need the trial so we can get a better picture of what has been going on. Yes, we know of lots of bad things but what about all the things we haven't heard of. We need the trial so we can get the full truth, or as close as possible about what has been going on.....afterwards, who knows?
Bin Laden was actively plotting attacks against the US Saddam is a POW according to the Pentagon, if Clinton had managed to capture him, I don't think taking him out back and shooting him would have been an option.
Originally posted by: Perknose
Sometimes, it's just a matter of hyper hyphen fever.
Not many hyphens there - couple of apostrophes though.
I hate to shatter your deformed image of saddam and all, but wether or not he had weapons of mass destruction, he was a threat to the free world. You can't seriously believe that after decades of holding complete control over a poeple and inflaming the rest of the world that he was going to go out quietly.
Plus, he could have done plenty of damage wihtout WMD. As to Bush's dirty lying skills, i can't say anything to that. I don't particulalry like the job bush has done misleading the country, but i do feel that going to war to preemptively remove a viscious dictator was a smart move- no matter how he handled it.
I wonder if this is supposed to be a joke, since it is well known that often times firefighters start their own fire (that they can control) in front of a blaze to steal oxygen and potential fuel. If this is a joke, sorry for the lecture, and if it isn't, try reading a newsaper once in a while
Is he or is he not a POW Galt? As a soldier, would you have wanted to be treated as a POW or be taken in the back and killed?
Depends on whether or not I'm in a Japanese POW camp. Because then I'd rather be shot. Furthermore, iI would place a very large bet that had Saddam gotten his hands on one of our soldiers or the pres. himself he wouldn't ahve been half as nice as we are to him.
Actually, when it comes down to it, how many countries in the world actually do follow the Geneva rules, and how many have been found to have broken them in and out of times of war? If someone finds stats about this, I'd be interested to know, but I'd be willing to bet again that many more break them than follow them.
US already broke the Geneva convetions when they showed him on TV... and when they showed his dead sons on TV.
When the war started Iraq did capture some US soldiers. There was a big fuss about them being shown on TV (breaking Geneva convetion and all), but they were in fairly good condition and seemed to have been treated well when they were released.
I guess I'm not talking so much about the little things like showing them on tv. More the stuff about torture (which i have read about in autobiographies concerning the Vietnam War, WWI and WWII).
And the whole thing about the U.S. showing him on tv i can understand although i dont necessarily condone it. They had already done the same thing (which i know doesn't make it right, but does make it easier to understand), and the country needed a pick me up. PLus, it sure didn't hurt Bush's approval rating.
Point is, i don't think saddam would treat our POW's better than we do his and him.
And the whole thing about the U.S. showing him on tv i can understand although i dont necessarily condone it. They had already done the same thing (which i know doesn't make it right, but does make it easier to understand), and the country needed a pick me up. PLus, it sure didn't hurt Bush's approval rating.
Point is, i don't think saddam would treat our POW's better than we do his and him.
No idea, as I am not a lawyer. I would think, though, that he should be classified as a POW...he wears a military uniform that associates him with a country and has openly taken up arms, so I think this, in and of itself, would classify him as a POW.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Bin Laden was not covered by the Executive Order regarding 'sanctions'. But, just for argument's sake, who ever he is, the issue was terminating Saddam without a trial of any sort. As you will recall UN Res 1441 did explicitly recognize the sovereignty of Iraq.. and that implies the status of Saddam as the rightful leader even as we drug him out of his hidey hole.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
Well, what was the Treaty that enshrined into our law the Charter of the UN all about then? Without UN authority to invade Iraq we were left with UN Article 51's 'justification' and that being the WMD and their immanent use against us. We now see that neither the means nor the opportunity existed to form the argument that was the predicate for what resulted in Saddam being the focus of this thread.
This is all about the Law. The niggly wiggly aspects of Law that most folks hate to deal with when their desires are not supported by the very Law we seek to establish as the criteria by which we act.
Someone has to stand up for the Law no matter which side of an issue our personal desires may reside. Right becomes Wrong no matter how Right Right seems to be when it when it can no longer be sustained by Law.
LunarRay
Diamond Member
- Mar 2, 2003
- 9,993
- 1
- 76
There probably was a time when that was the 'Law' - the accepted mode of conduct relative to the issues of those times. Today we are under the demi-Gort of another mode of conduct. One in which all folks are presumed to be equal in its eyes. I presume I have this going for me and I demand it for me and for you and for everyone.
Take Saddam to a court of appropriate venue and indict him for what ever he is alleged to have done and have a trial and if found guilty then and only then is punishment the issue. It is not for us to be as he is alleged to be and then with righteous indignation pound our puffed out chest like the gorillas some seek to emulate.
Siddhartha
Lifer
- Oct 17, 1999
- 12,505
- 3
- 81
I do not have a "deformed image of saddam ". I have a problem with invading a country and shooting it's leader without any form of due process.
I'll admit, the whole shooting thing is probably not the way we should go. What I'm saying is that it would simplyify things greatly, and I think when we all look back on this ten years from now, we won't have gained that much useful information from him, or he'll be turned loose or escape to kill more people or something along those lines.
And you do have a deformed image of Saddam if you believe that he and Iraq were not a threat to the free world. You can talk all you want about how know we know his gevernemnt was supposedly crumbling underneath him, and we haven't found WMD and all that sh@t, but it all comes down to the fact that he had complete control over a nation and its people, and he wasn't treating them nicely. We gave them 10 years, and they agreed to shape up. They didn't, and I'll bet after 9/11 you were yelling just as loud as the rest of us that the government should take care of it.
They decided the threat was, while not necessarily solely Saddam, in part his fault, and if you think he wasn't a part of it, your crazy.
"The only thing required for evil to win is for good men to do nothing."
And you do have a deformed image of Saddam if you believe that he and Iraq were not a threat to the free world. You can talk all you want about how know we know his gevernemnt was supposedly crumbling underneath him, and we haven't found WMD and all that sh@t, but it all comes down to the fact that he had complete control over a nation and its people, and he wasn't treating them nicely. We gave them 10 years, and they agreed to shape up. They didn't, and I'll bet after 9/11 you were yelling just as loud as the rest of us that the government should take care of it.
They decided the threat was, while not necessarily solely Saddam, in part his fault, and if you think he wasn't a part of it, your crazy.
"The only thing required for evil to win is for good men to do nothing."
No, it would make things much worse. It would leave too many questions lingering in the minds
of people who are looking for a convenient excuse to target the US as a great oppressor.
Please provide proof that he was... Nobody else seems to be able to. You want to buy the party
line, but it is well known that Bush was looking for excuses to invade Iraq long before 9/11.
"The only thing required for evil to win is for good men to do nothing."
The other thing required is for good men to start thinking that fighting fire with fire is the same as
fighting evil with evil.
" They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."
-- Benjamin Franklin
Like it or not, the right to a fair trial is an essentail liberty. Not just for Saddam, but also for all his a
accusers. A quick death would deny them the right to see him answer for his crimes.
Hmmm.... How about the first war in the early 90's as proof that he was a threat? How about the fact that if he had nothing to hide, why not just show it and get us out of his hair instead of refusing and working against global efforts to determine if he was a threat? And personally, i think bush is doing a horrendous job as president and in handling this war- but that doesn't preclude me from agreeing with the fact that it was still necessary.
Furthermore, if you'll just take a quick look at the post you are so eagerly quoting from, i already address the whole information thing. I can live with the fact that we will never be sure what he knows about the mating rituals of northern Iraqi cacti if it means not taking the chance he will escape and wreak more havoc in the world.
Finally, I never said I disagreed with the law concerning fair trials, but there are problems here. First, that law is a U.S. law, and as Saddam is a crazy @ss world dictator, i don't think it applies to him. Second, i doubt he would hesitate to do the same thing were our positions reversed.
Vic
Elite Member
- Jun 12, 2001
- 50,422
- 14,337
- 136
The right of the accused to a fair trial is the very foundation of civilization.
If we are so right, and he is so wrong, then we should not fear his right to a fair trial, but should welcome it as the vindication of our righteous morality and the might of our free civilization.
Otherwise, we are no better than those we would condemn.
If we are so right, and he is so wrong, then we should not fear his right to a fair trial, but should welcome it as the vindication of our righteous morality and the might of our free civilization.
Otherwise, we are no better than those we would condemn.
First of all, I can think of several civilizations that don't use a fair trial as thier basis. So that statement is wrong to begin with. Secondly, I am not saying I fear the outcome or would not welcome Saddam's trial, I just said it would be easier and certainly cheaper fro everyone if we took him out back and let his fellow countrymen and women deal with him.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter