Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Stigmata66 · Feb 18, 2004, 03:23 pm

You people who complain about Saddam's treatment are sick...you're standing up for the rights of a genocidal brutal dictator...!!! He sin't being totured and is living a much better than when he was on the run; what the hell is your problem???

**Sean** · Feb 18, 2004, 04:12 pm

Stigmata, I've contacted you via pm, and AIM. Please do not attack members the way you have in this thread. I believe I've already warned you in the past about this very problem.

Feb 18, 2004, 04:12 pm

Stigmata,

If you take away the rights of one, you've taken away the rights of all.

U.S. leaders were planning on taking Hussein out well before Sept. 11 and even before Bush took office. Under the doctrine of preemptive war, Hussein would have been justified in attacking the WTC towers and the Pentagon (yes, I know he didn't. just using it as an example people can understand). Why shouldn't he have gotten us first? Isn't that what the preemptive doctrine is about? After all, we have more nuclear weapons than we can shake a stick at and the ability to deliver them.

If the doctrine of 'so what, he's worse than us' is applied, Nazi Germany is off the hook. The death count pales in comparison to the Soviet Union and China.

The humanitarian claim is bull plop as well. Cuba is an island prison. Shall we free Cuba?

PeterAngelo · Feb 18, 2004, 04:25 pm

Bill Hodges:

How many Americans work at crap job WITHOUT INSPIRATION?

What a stupid slogan.

Socialism would nurture ones actual talents and abilities - not try to make cookie cutter cogs for a war machine.

It has never been tried because barbarians with weapons kill people for money - and still get away with it.

RadicalBeliever · Feb 18, 2004, 05:49 pm

Bush saved lots of people from a gruesome death. So some other people got killed in the process. You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. In the end, the iraqies are better off and that is all that should matter. It's also nonsense to say that he didn't liberate other people from dictatorships, at least he saved these people! That's better than not saving anyone at all.

tusaki · Feb 18, 2004, 06:25 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (RadicalBeliever,)
You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>I wonder if the eggs agree.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (RadicalBeliever,)
In the end, the iraqies are better off and that is all that should matter.<hr size="1" /></blockquote> I don't think people disagree about that, but it would still be good to look at 'how' and 'why'. And learn from it. I believe everyone makes mistakes and can learn from them, and this includes governments.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (RadicalBeliever,)
It's also nonsense to say that he didn't liberate other people from dictatorships, at least he saved these people! That's better than not saving anyone at all.<hr size="1" /></blockquote> Yes, but you should also look at 'why' Bush decided to go after iraq instead of the other dictatorships.

PeterAngelo · Feb 18, 2004, 06:32 pm

RadicalBeliever:

Change that to "BelieveInFairyTales"

What a moronic thing to think - killing babies saves them - they are just unfortunate "broken eggs".

I can't wait until someone breaks your eggs and gets your families gene pool off the planet. There are way too many idiots that shouldn't breed now - I hope you don't.

Evil Baby · Feb 18, 2004, 07:26 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (RadicalBeliever,)
Bush saved lots of people from a gruesome death. So some other people got killed in the process. You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. In the end, the iraqies are better off and that is all that should matter. It's also nonsense to say that he didn't liberate other people from dictatorships, at least he saved these people! That's better than not saving anyone at all.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

The problem isn't that Bush has made peoples lives better, it is how he went about it justifying the war. Bush wanted to get into Iraq and he knew he couldn't use human rights as the reason because that would mean that the US would have to invade countless other nations even though he would have got a lot of support he may have to give up power of Iraq to the UN and the US would have to fight on so many different fronts. I don't see how any American citizen can allow their President to get away with what he has. He forcefully implied that Iraq was an immediate threat not only to the Middle East, but to the US and the rest of the world, and we find out after the war that the CIA never said any such thing.

SVMc · Feb 18, 2004, 08:15 pm

Is the Bush administration liable for War Crimes?

Under the Westphalian system (in which we are currenlty living) any state which invades the sovereignty of another state is in violation of war crimes. But it's not really that black and white. We know the Westphalian system came into legal being in 1648 and there have been many inter-state conflicts since then and few of them have been held accountable as war criminals. So obviously the breach of territorial sovereingty by military force is a widely accepted method of state interaction. In fact if you read any international relations literature on the role of the state, you will find a long standing belief (which is only recently being challenged) that the state is the only legitimate user of violence internally and externally. The Bush administration did commit a war crime when he displayed the dead bodies of Sadam's sons. This is again however a familiar tactic in war, and as such is not likely to be seen as a serious breach or prosecuted. Is were the reasons the Bush administration declared war legitimate? This is highly contested but there is likely enough weight to prevent prosecution (see the section on changing international law). The more difficult question for U.S. citizens may be if the Bush administration did not have UN sanction or NATO sanction to go to war, it needed to demonstate popular will. In light of the massive anti-war demonstrations which were on average 10 times larger than the Vietnam era this could be a large democratic deficiency in the U.S.

Is the Bush administration liable for Crimes Against Humanity?

This argument originally surfaced in hindsight to the first Bush administration. On the grounds of geneocide some argued that since it could be demonstrated that the economic sanctions imposed on Iraq combined with the original damage to infrastructre the first Gulf War caused that there were approimately 500 000 deaths of children under 5 per year and 700 000 deaths per year total that this equivocated geneocide. The problem with this argument is that we do not prosecute for economic geneocide and further more there is a very valid argument that it was Sadam's administration (on top of all it's other horrors) that refused to use reserve resources to repair infrastructure or distribute social welfare.

What role does oil and money have in the Gulf War the sequal?

Denying that oil and money had any role in the Gulf War (one or two) is as flawed as trying to prove that it was the only motivator for war. The motivations behind oil are not as simple as the US went to take the Iraqi oil. However Iraq does have some of the largest oil reserves in the world. Just before the first Gulf War several Middle East oil rich nations (excluding Kuwait and Saudi Arabia) began talks about breaking from the OECD and deciding thier own oil pricing as well as nationalizing private oil companies that were U.S. UK (or others) under previous colonial structure. This would have resulted in two problems for the U.S. (and other large consumers of oil). First the US would likely have seen oil shocks like the 1970's but in reverse with oil pricing falling through the floor because the Mid-East could saturate the market. Since our economies are so heavily based on oil this could have caused a depression similar to the 1930's. Second, the US would have lost contracts and oil feilds they had purchased from colonial powers before countries were de-colonized. Destabilization in the Mid-East is good for the US oil economy because it make the US oil worth more. We also have to recognize that only the countries that did nationalize thier oil feilds have been recently under attack (Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Colombia, Venezuala) countries which have contined to contract to US oil companies have been protected and befreinded by the US (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia).

The Changing nature of International Security:

No one so far has mentioned the concept of human security. I don't know if this is because the majority of people on here are American or if it is simply an oversight. As I mentioned at the beginning we are with all technicality existing in the Westphalian system. However since the end of the cold-war there has been widespread academic debate that there is a crisis of the Westphalian principles of non-intervention. The principle of national sovereignty used to be supreme, but as intra-state conflicts become more frequent, and violent acts of geneocide are increasingly carried out by states against thier own populations there has been an international cry to re-examine the reasons for intervention, especially after Rawanda. Joseph Nye first introduced the term soft power, later popularized by Lloyd Axworthy, who went on to be an key voice in the UNDP 1994 report on human security. The most comprehensive document on human security is the ICISS report on the responsibility to protect available at http://www.idrc.ca/booktique/ The key motivation behind human security is to reposition the individual (or community) as the focus of security rather than the state. The responsibility to protect enshrines three key responsibilities: to prevent, to protect and to rebuild. It would be questionable if the international community followed the first responsibility (but they we are being retroactive). Despite original American skepticim of human security the Bush administration has eagerly adopted the dialect of human securit to justify Iraq. If this is simply a publicity ploy or a real change in outlook is a different question. None the less there is beginning to be real international precident for these types of actions, although the lack of multilateralism in the case of Iraq would be a serious issue.

What is the role of the UN?

Many people argue that it is only after the cold-war that the UN will be able to begin to fulfill it's original purpose, because before that internatinational policies and trends were largely set by the two superpowers. We cannot necessairly fault the UN for its military inaction, after all the UN does not have a standing army it depends on creating a co-alition of the willing under a UN banner. Further more the US has frequently been the largest stumbling block to any international actions (the convention on the rights of the child, ILO accord #169, the convention to ban land mines, the international criminal court, the NPT, Kyoto and Oslo to mention a few). None the less the UN has managed to adopt and ratify most of the above conventions. The UN is largely a policy body more so than a military coalition. It is also more so the veto power held by the contradictory 5 permenant members of the security council that fails to reach agreement often more so than the general assembly.

Stigmata66 · Feb 18, 2004, 10:34 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
StoneWT

Stigmata,

If you take away the rights of one, you've taken away the rights of all.

U.S. leaders were planning on taking Hussein out well before Sept. 11 and even before Bush took office. Under the doctrine of preemptive war, Hussein would have been justified in attacking the WTC towers and the Pentagon (yes, I know he didn't. just using it as an example people can understand). Why shouldn't he have gotten us first? Isn't that what the preemptive doctrine is about? After all, we have more nuclear weapons than we can shake a stick at and the ability to deliver them.

If the doctrine of 'so what, he's worse than us' is applied, Nazi Germany is off the hook. The death count pales in comparison to the Soviet Union and China.

The humanitarian claim is bull plop as well. Cuba is an island prison. Shall
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Yes, this is a good point but I fail to see how Saddams "rights" have been violated.I don't recall a declaration of war...therefore he can't be a prisoner of war and I don't beleive he was in a uniform when we caught him. Saddam should have struck at us first(but he didn't), strike first or not at all. The Israeli Six Day War is pretty much the same here but we weren't threatened by Saddam nearly as much as Israel by the Arab coalilition. As for the Soviet Union, they were our enemy and theres not much we could have done without a nuclear holocaust, even before nukes it would have been a long drawn out stalemate resulting in no victor, and I don't know about China probably because fighting waves upon waves of chinese conscripts was very appealing since you saw what happened in Korea (no declaration of war there either!).

SVMc · Feb 18, 2004, 10:39 pm

Point of clarification, there was a formal declaration of war on March 15 2003. And the U.S. is currently holding Saddam with POW status, although I don't know when the POW status was conferred, but I can look it up if it's critical to anyones argument.

Stigmata66 · Feb 18, 2004, 10:40 pm

I'm not saying he's not a POW but I do think inorder to be a POW I thought you had to meet certain guidelines.

SVMc · Feb 18, 2004, 10:48 pm

??? please clarify???

1) You are not disputing that he currently has status as a POW, but you think he should not be because he did not meet the criteria?

2) You are disputing his legal standing as a POW but think that he should be one because he almost meets the criteria?

I've probably been on the computer too long, I appologize if this seems self-evident.

rmnunez · Feb 18, 2004, 11:51 pm

Adams I'm unaware of any impediment to international criminal prosecution that arises from the public display of the accused. Criminal trials by jury are not the norm under most EU law and it is the bias sown by the display which argues most strongly against it. Judges and tribunals are a bit more sophisticated in their judgment than the public generally, so I think any adverse publicity Saddam got from seeing the doctors go through his hair checking for lice will be minimized.

There are good reasons to prosectute Saddam under Iraqi law, it would certainly prove the most satisfactory answer for most of his victim's survivors. Unfortunately, it is anticipated under Iraqi law that Saddam would be sentenced to death. He did also violate international law but this is more problematic due to US policy not as a consequence of displaying the man. The policy problem has to do with making any reference to the ICC, which, if applied, would certainly cover Saddam's transgressions, but which the US does not acknowledge.

Stigmata66 · Feb 19, 2004, 03:21 pm

SVMc I'd have to go with number one.

SVMc · Feb 19, 2004, 03:29 pm

Since the conferance of POW status means the Iraqi people cannot prosecute him themselves I really have to wonder how much the U.S. is usurping the rights of Iraqi people to their own judicial process.

Feb 19, 2004, 04:43 pm

I think that maybe the worse punishment for Bush would be to fix the next election, keep him in there and make him listen to all the kneejerk reactions, cries of war crimes and whoa is me from the liberal left.

damnrad · Feb 19, 2004, 05:28 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Stigmata66,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Deckard59 Posted on 02-12-2004 06:12 PM
Since it's now obvious to everyone in the United States, although the rest of the world knew before the war started, that there was never W. of Mass Destruction in Iraq, the question remains, what right did the United States have to attack Iraq.

True, Iraq didn’t meet all the requests of the Weapons Inspectors, but there was nothing to find. Iraq’s objections and lack of cooperation was somewhat within reason, especially now, when we can clearly see that Bush and the rest of the hawks were just using the United Nations.

Some do see the truth as to what happened, but still many fellow Americans feel they can pat themselves in the back because of all the horrific murders and human rights violations that they’ve uncovered and stopped. They feel that if the US didn’t go, those things would still be continuing today. That point maybe true, but in no way does that give a country the right to attack another country. All though not on the same scale, every country in the world is guilty of human rights violations, even the US.

When anyone looks now, it’s obvious to see that the United States only motive in attacking Iraq was because of Greed, Money and Power.

Without any legitimate reasons, it’s clear that the leader of such an aggressive war mongering country should be up for war crimes.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

No. You're an idiot.

Saddam was a war criminal! Hundreds of thousands of dead in mass graves, rape rooms, torturing of athletes that preformed under the Qusay bar of excelence, and needless to say the use of chemical weapons against the kurds. That's a real war criminal.

I geuss you don't support war in Iraq, so you'd rather have a real war criminal in power that did that ^, than the US REBUILDING, EDUCATING, AND PROTECTING IRAQI'S AT OUR OWN EXPENSE.If that is not justification to go to war then I don't know what is.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

And most of those dead in mass graves were put there when Saddam was the U.S.' buddy; when Rummy was happily shaking his killing hands; when the U.S. was urging him on in his war against Iran, which Saddam started by invading Iran; when the U.S. was supplying him with weapons, including the makings of chem and bio weapons; when the U.S. was happily turning its head the other way while he used those weapons; in short, when the U.S. was implicated in the war crimes.

And when Saddam invaded Kuwait, daddy Bush put together a coalition to reverse that but held back from toppling Saddam. Why? Because the U.S. did not want to anger its Arab allies, and because toppling Saddam would destabilize the region. Dubya wasn't as smart as papa.

Stigmata66 · Feb 19, 2004, 07:14 pm

So you're saying the region needs Saddam....LOL...look he still committed those atrosities. Do you like Saddam for some reason but you seem to pass Saddam of as some guy taking orders from the US not some brutal dictator...nice spin.

ethyl · Feb 19, 2004, 07:29 pm

:rolleyes: They did not capture the real Saddam. I believe the CIA already know. If they don't we're in trouble!

Check out an original picture of the real Saddam in 2002 and then the picture of one they captured. Look at the nose. He's a double. It's beyond my comprehension why no one can figure this out!

Feb 18, 2004, 03:23 pm	#61 (permalink) (top)
Stigmata66 Molten Ash Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 74	You people who complain about Saddam's treatment are sick...you're standing up for the rights of a genocidal brutal dictator...!!! He sin't being totured and is living a much better than when he was on the run; what the hell is your problem??? Hate heals, you should try it some time! Fukin Arch Enemy!

Feb 18, 2004, 04:12 pm	#62 (permalink) (top)
Sean former overlord Location: New York Posts: 2,383	Stigmata, I've contacted you via pm, and AIM. Please do not attack members the way you have in this thread. I believe I've already warned you in the past about this very problem. So it goes

Feb 18, 2004, 06:25 pm	#66 (permalink) (top)
tusaki Playful Location: Groningen, the Netherlands Posts: 805	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (RadicalBeliever,) You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>I wonder if the eggs agree. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (RadicalBeliever,) In the end, the iraqies are better off and that is all that should matter.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I don't think people disagree about that, but it would still be good to look at 'how' and 'why'. And learn from it. I believe everyone makes mistakes and can learn from them, and this includes governments. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (RadicalBeliever,) It's also nonsense to say that he didn't liberate other people from dictatorships, at least he saved these people! That's better than not saving anyone at all.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Yes, but you should also look at 'why' Bush decided to go after iraq instead of the other dictatorships. Hope & Dream

Feb 18, 2004, 07:26 pm	#68 (permalink) (top)
Evil Baby Igneous Magma Posts: 313	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (RadicalBeliever,) Bush saved lots of people from a gruesome death. So some other people got killed in the process. You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. In the end, the iraqies are better off and that is all that should matter. It's also nonsense to say that he didn't liberate other people from dictatorships, at least he saved these people! That's better than not saving anyone at all.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> The problem isn't that Bush has made peoples lives better, it is how he went about it justifying the war. Bush wanted to get into Iraq and he knew he couldn't use human rights as the reason because that would mean that the US would have to invade countless other nations even though he would have got a lot of support he may have to give up power of Iraq to the UN and the US would have to fight on so many different fronts. I don't see how any American citizen can allow their President to get away with what he has. He forcefully implied that Iraq was an immediate threat not only to the Middle East, but to the US and the rest of the world, and we find out after the war that the CIA never said any such thing.

Feb 18, 2004, 08:15 pm	#69 (permalink) (top)
SVMc Lazy Sniper Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 513	Is the Bush administration liable for War Crimes? Under the Westphalian system (in which we are currenlty living) any state which invades the sovereignty of another state is in violation of war crimes. But it's not really that black and white. We know the Westphalian system came into legal being in 1648 and there have been many inter-state conflicts since then and few of them have been held accountable as war criminals. So obviously the breach of territorial sovereingty by military force is a widely accepted method of state interaction. In fact if you read any international relations literature on the role of the state, you will find a long standing belief (which is only recently being challenged) that the state is the only legitimate user of violence internally and externally. The Bush administration did commit a war crime when he displayed the dead bodies of Sadam's sons. This is again however a familiar tactic in war, and as such is not likely to be seen as a serious breach or prosecuted. Is were the reasons the Bush administration declared war legitimate? This is highly contested but there is likely enough weight to prevent prosecution (see the section on changing international law). The more difficult question for U.S. citizens may be if the Bush administration did not have UN sanction or NATO sanction to go to war, it needed to demonstate popular will. In light of the massive anti-war demonstrations which were on average 10 times larger than the Vietnam era this could be a large democratic deficiency in the U.S. Is the Bush administration liable for Crimes Against Humanity? This argument originally surfaced in hindsight to the first Bush administration. On the grounds of geneocide some argued that since it could be demonstrated that the economic sanctions imposed on Iraq combined with the original damage to infrastructre the first Gulf War caused that there were approimately 500 000 deaths of children under 5 per year and 700 000 deaths per year total that this equivocated geneocide. The problem with this argument is that we do not prosecute for economic geneocide and further more there is a very valid argument that it was Sadam's administration (on top of all it's other horrors) that refused to use reserve resources to repair infrastructure or distribute social welfare. What role does oil and money have in the Gulf War the sequal? Denying that oil and money had any role in the Gulf War (one or two) is as flawed as trying to prove that it was the only motivator for war. The motivations behind oil are not as simple as the US went to take the Iraqi oil. However Iraq does have some of the largest oil reserves in the world. Just before the first Gulf War several Middle East oil rich nations (excluding Kuwait and Saudi Arabia) began talks about breaking from the OECD and deciding thier own oil pricing as well as nationalizing private oil companies that were U.S. UK (or others) under previous colonial structure. This would have resulted in two problems for the U.S. (and other large consumers of oil). First the US would likely have seen oil shocks like the 1970's but in reverse with oil pricing falling through the floor because the Mid-East could saturate the market. Since our economies are so heavily based on oil this could have caused a depression similar to the 1930's. Second, the US would have lost contracts and oil feilds they had purchased from colonial powers before countries were de-colonized. Destabilization in the Mid-East is good for the US oil economy because it make the US oil worth more. We also have to recognize that only the countries that did nationalize thier oil feilds have been recently under attack (Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Colombia, Venezuala) countries which have contined to contract to US oil companies have been protected and befreinded by the US (Kuwait, Saudi Arabia). The Changing nature of International Security: No one so far has mentioned the concept of human security. I don't know if this is because the majority of people on here are American or if it is simply an oversight. As I mentioned at the beginning we are with all technicality existing in the Westphalian system. However since the end of the cold-war there has been widespread academic debate that there is a crisis of the Westphalian principles of non-intervention. The principle of national sovereignty used to be supreme, but as intra-state conflicts become more frequent, and violent acts of geneocide are increasingly carried out by states against thier own populations there has been an international cry to re-examine the reasons for intervention, especially after Rawanda. Joseph Nye first introduced the term soft power, later popularized by Lloyd Axworthy, who went on to be an key voice in the UNDP 1994 report on human security. The most comprehensive document on human security is the ICISS report on the responsibility to protect available at http://www.idrc.ca/booktique/ The key motivation behind human security is to reposition the individual (or community) as the focus of security rather than the state. The responsibility to protect enshrines three key responsibilities: to prevent, to protect and to rebuild. It would be questionable if the international community followed the first responsibility (but they we are being retroactive). Despite original American skepticim of human security the Bush administration has eagerly adopted the dialect of human securit to justify Iraq. If this is simply a publicity ploy or a real change in outlook is a different question. None the less there is beginning to be real international precident for these types of actions, although the lack of multilateralism in the case of Iraq would be a serious issue. What is the role of the UN? Many people argue that it is only after the cold-war that the UN will be able to begin to fulfill it's original purpose, because before that internatinational policies and trends were largely set by the two superpowers. We cannot necessairly fault the UN for its military inaction, after all the UN does not have a standing army it depends on creating a co-alition of the willing under a UN banner. Further more the US has frequently been the largest stumbling block to any international actions (the convention on the rights of the child, ILO accord #169, the convention to ban land mines, the international criminal court, the NPT, Kyoto and Oslo to mention a few). None the less the UN has managed to adopt and ratify most of the above conventions. The UN is largely a policy body more so than a military coalition. It is also more so the veto power held by the contradictory 5 permenant members of the security council that fails to reach agreement often more so than the general assembly. Capitalism is: Man exploiting man. Socialism is the other way around.

Feb 18, 2004, 04:12 pm	#63 (permalink) (top)
StoneWT Guest Posts: n/a	Stigmata, If you take away the rights of one, you've taken away the rights of all. U.S. leaders were planning on taking Hussein out well before Sept. 11 and even before Bush took office. Under the doctrine of preemptive war, Hussein would have been justified in attacking the WTC towers and the Pentagon (yes, I know he didn't. just using it as an example people can understand). Why shouldn't he have gotten us first? Isn't that what the preemptive doctrine is about? After all, we have more nuclear weapons than we can shake a stick at and the ability to deliver them. If the doctrine of 'so what, he's worse than us' is applied, Nazi Germany is off the hook. The death count pales in comparison to the Soviet Union and China. The humanitarian claim is bull plop as well. Cuba is an island prison. Shall we free Cuba?

Feb 18, 2004, 04:25 pm	#64 (permalink) (top)
PeterAngelo Igneous Magma Posts: 169	Bill Hodges: How many Americans work at crap job WITHOUT INSPIRATION? What a stupid slogan. Socialism would nurture ones actual talents and abilities - not try to make cookie cutter cogs for a war machine. It has never been tried because barbarians with weapons kill people for money - and still get away with it.

Feb 18, 2004, 05:49 pm	#65 (permalink) (top)
RadicalBeliever Sedimentary Rock Posts: 3	Bush saved lots of people from a gruesome death. So some other people got killed in the process. You can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. In the end, the iraqies are better off and that is all that should matter. It's also nonsense to say that he didn't liberate other people from dictatorships, at least he saved these people! That's better than not saving anyone at all.

Feb 18, 2004, 06:32 pm	#67 (permalink) (top)
PeterAngelo Igneous Magma Posts: 169	RadicalBeliever: Change that to "BelieveInFairyTales" What a moronic thing to think - killing babies saves them - they are just unfortunate "broken eggs". I can't wait until someone breaks your eggs and gets your families gene pool off the planet. There are way too many idiots that shouldn't breed now - I hope you don't.

Feb 18, 2004, 10:34 pm	#70 (permalink) (top)
Stigmata66 Molten Ash Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 74	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by StoneWT Stigmata, If you take away the rights of one, you've taken away the rights of all. U.S. leaders were planning on taking Hussein out well before Sept. 11 and even before Bush took office. Under the doctrine of preemptive war, Hussein would have been justified in attacking the WTC towers and the Pentagon (yes, I know he didn't. just using it as an example people can understand). Why shouldn't he have gotten us first? Isn't that what the preemptive doctrine is about? After all, we have more nuclear weapons than we can shake a stick at and the ability to deliver them. If the doctrine of 'so what, he's worse than us' is applied, Nazi Germany is off the hook. The death count pales in comparison to the Soviet Union and China. The humanitarian claim is bull plop as well. Cuba is an island prison. Shall <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Yes, this is a good point but I fail to see how Saddams "rights" have been violated.I don't recall a declaration of war...therefore he can't be a prisoner of war and I don't beleive he was in a uniform when we caught him. Saddam should have struck at us first(but he didn't), strike first or not at all. The Israeli Six Day War is pretty much the same here but we weren't threatened by Saddam nearly as much as Israel by the Arab coalilition. As for the Soviet Union, they were our enemy and theres not much we could have done without a nuclear holocaust, even before nukes it would have been a long drawn out stalemate resulting in no victor, and I don't know about China probably because fighting waves upon waves of chinese conscripts was very appealing since you saw what happened in Korea (no declaration of war there either!). Hate heals, you should try it some time! Fukin Arch Enemy!

Feb 18, 2004, 10:39 pm	#71 (permalink) (top)
SVMc Lazy Sniper Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 513	Point of clarification, there was a formal declaration of war on March 15 2003. And the U.S. is currently holding Saddam with POW status, although I don't know when the POW status was conferred, but I can look it up if it's critical to anyones argument. Capitalism is: Man exploiting man. Socialism is the other way around.

Feb 18, 2004, 10:40 pm	#72 (permalink) (top)
Stigmata66 Molten Ash Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 74	I'm not saying he's not a POW but I do think inorder to be a POW I thought you had to meet certain guidelines. Hate heals, you should try it some time! Fukin Arch Enemy!

Feb 18, 2004, 10:48 pm	#73 (permalink) (top)
SVMc Lazy Sniper Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 513	??? please clarify??? 1) You are not disputing that he currently has status as a POW, but you think he should not be because he did not meet the criteria? 2) You are disputing his legal standing as a POW but think that he should be one because he almost meets the criteria? I've probably been on the computer too long, I appologize if this seems self-evident. Capitalism is: Man exploiting man. Socialism is the other way around.

Feb 18, 2004, 11:51 pm	#74 (permalink) (top)
rmnunez Volcanic Erupter Location: Mexico City Posts: 4,772	Adams I'm unaware of any impediment to international criminal prosecution that arises from the public display of the accused. Criminal trials by jury are not the norm under most EU law and it is the bias sown by the display which argues most strongly against it. Judges and tribunals are a bit more sophisticated in their judgment than the public generally, so I think any adverse publicity Saddam got from seeing the doctors go through his hair checking for lice will be minimized. There are good reasons to prosectute Saddam under Iraqi law, it would certainly prove the most satisfactory answer for most of his victim's survivors. Unfortunately, it is anticipated under Iraqi law that Saddam would be sentenced to death. He did also violate international law but this is more problematic due to US policy not as a consequence of displaying the man. The policy problem has to do with making any reference to the ICC, which, if applied, would certainly cover Saddam's transgressions, but which the US does not acknowledge. Et semel emissum volat irrevocabile verbum. Raúl M. Núñez Sheriff

Feb 19, 2004, 03:21 pm	#75 (permalink) (top)
Stigmata66 Molten Ash Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 74	SVMc I'd have to go with number one. Hate heals, you should try it some time! Fukin Arch Enemy!

Feb 19, 2004, 03:29 pm	#76 (permalink) (top)
SVMc Lazy Sniper Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 513	Since the conferance of POW status means the Iraqi people cannot prosecute him themselves I really have to wonder how much the U.S. is usurping the rights of Iraqi people to their own judicial process. Capitalism is: Man exploiting man. Socialism is the other way around.

Feb 19, 2004, 04:43 pm	#77 (permalink) (top)
URnotmeRU Guest Posts: n/a	I think that maybe the worse punishment for Bush would be to fix the next election, keep him in there and make him listen to all the kneejerk reactions, cries of war crimes and whoa is me from the liberal left.

Feb 19, 2004, 05:28 pm	#78 (permalink) (top)
damnrad Igneous Magma Posts: 264	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Stigmata66,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Deckard59 Posted on 02-12-2004 06:12 PM Since it's now obvious to everyone in the United States, although the rest of the world knew before the war started, that there was never W. of Mass Destruction in Iraq, the question remains, what right did the United States have to attack Iraq. True, Iraq didn’t meet all the requests of the Weapons Inspectors, but there was nothing to find. Iraq’s objections and lack of cooperation was somewhat within reason, especially now, when we can clearly see that Bush and the rest of the hawks were just using the United Nations. Some do see the truth as to what happened, but still many fellow Americans feel they can pat themselves in the back because of all the horrific murders and human rights violations that they’ve uncovered and stopped. They feel that if the US didn’t go, those things would still be continuing today. That point maybe true, but in no way does that give a country the right to attack another country. All though not on the same scale, every country in the world is guilty of human rights violations, even the US. When anyone looks now, it’s obvious to see that the United States only motive in attacking Iraq was because of Greed, Money and Power. Without any legitimate reasons, it’s clear that the leader of such an aggressive war mongering country should be up for war crimes. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> No. You're an idiot. Saddam was a war criminal! Hundreds of thousands of dead in mass graves, rape rooms, torturing of athletes that preformed under the Qusay bar of excelence, and needless to say the use of chemical weapons against the kurds. That's a real war criminal. I geuss you don't support war in Iraq, so you'd rather have a real war criminal in power that did that ^, than the US REBUILDING, EDUCATING, AND PROTECTING IRAQI'S AT OUR OWN EXPENSE.If that is not justification to go to war then I don't know what is.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> And most of those dead in mass graves were put there when Saddam was the U.S.' buddy; when Rummy was happily shaking his killing hands; when the U.S. was urging him on in his war against Iran, which Saddam started by invading Iran; when the U.S. was supplying him with weapons, including the makings of chem and bio weapons; when the U.S. was happily turning its head the other way while he used those weapons; in short, when the U.S. was implicated in the war crimes. And when Saddam invaded Kuwait, daddy Bush put together a coalition to reverse that but held back from toppling Saddam. Why? Because the U.S. did not want to anger its Arab allies, and because toppling Saddam would destabilize the region. Dubya wasn't as smart as papa.

Feb 19, 2004, 07:14 pm	#79 (permalink) (top)
Stigmata66 Molten Ash Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 74	So you're saying the region needs Saddam....LOL...look he still committed those atrosities. Do you like Saddam for some reason but you seem to pass Saddam of as some guy taking orders from the US not some brutal dictator...nice spin. Hate heals, you should try it some time! Fukin Arch Enemy!

Feb 19, 2004, 07:29 pm	#80 (permalink) (top)
ethyl Sedimentary Rock Posts: 2	:rolleyes: They did not capture the real Saddam. I believe the CIA already know. If they don't we're in trouble! Check out an original picture of the real Saddam in 2002 and then the picture of one they captured. Look at the nose. He's a double. It's beyond my comprehension why no one can figure this out!