Setanta wrote:That assumes that you've made a point. I see no evidence of that. Hussein has been on the run or in custody for over two years. He ain't goin' anywhere either . . . so just what is your point?
I guess if you were debating instead of attacking me personally then you would know I said the Iraqi people are handling their business. I would rather have that then for Saddam being in the International Courts where he would never see justice. Much like Milosevic who should have been sentenced by now.
What makes you think that the political and legal wranglings that have gone on with Milosevic could not happen in the Iraqi courts with Hussein?
Intrepid wrote:What makes you think that the political and legal wranglings that have gone on with Milosevic could not happen in the Iraqi courts with Hussein?
A single mind in the Iraqi court and a world of minds in the IC. To much BS in the IC. Happy we aren't part of it.
I've never pinched a war criminal but I would imagine it would be a pretty big job. I can tell you though, the average wounding with intent can take months and months before it gets to trial and the trial itself can take a couple of weeks. Given the enormity of the crimes alleged I would think that your average war criminal would not get bail so they are out of the action while their trial takes place. And so they should be. If they're found not guilty - ahem - they can always get compensation.
I like the International Criminal Court for trying people like Milosevic. America should be ashamed that its govt rejected it. Even our lickspittle govt signed up. When Bush and the cabal have gone you can sign up though, it will be good.
I am pretty amazed that I find myself in agreement with Baldimo regarding the Iraqi's right to try their own criminals. I seriously doubt the ones in charge of Iraq right now (such as it is) are going to wait a long time before finding him guilty and executing him.
I don't have a problem with them trying him for the 140 villagers. My point is that WE have spent BILLIONS and have sent thousands of our kids over there to fight.
For what?
So the Iraqi's can try Saddam for ordering the death of 140 villagers?
Ya gotta be kidding me.
Did Saddam not break any international laws that he could be charged with? And if not, what are we doing over there?
I think the war and the trial of Saddam Hussien are two different things. I don't think Iraqi's are going to be too concerned with trying Saddam Hussien for breaking international laws.
As for what we are doing over there, I guess we are there because we "broke it and now we got to fix it."
I personally don't think we are ever going to fix it. We can help with the secuirty if they want us to but like the trying of Saddam Hussien, the Iraqis are going to have to work all their problems on their own because it is their country.
squinney wrote:Did Saddam not break any international laws that he could be charged with? And if not, what are we doing over there?
squinney: What "international laws" are you talking about?
Any!
The argument was made that Saddam wasn't following UN resolutions, that he was buying aluminum tubing to make bombs, that he was shooting at our planes, that he had mobile labs and biological items he shouldn't have had, and that he invaded another country (Kuwait, although I thought we had dealt with that already, but someone brought it up.)
Now out of all of that, either he broke some law in order for there to be a reason for us to attack or he didn't break any laws.
If he did break a law based on the reasons used to invade, we should be charging him for breaking that law. If he didn't break any law, .... Well, then IMO we shouldn't be there.
Ya can't go around invading countries and sending other peoples children to die if the country you invade didn't break a law, either an international law, a pact, an agreement or something.
We are supposed to be a nation of laws. We have laws that govern the international community as well. We have a world court and the UN for dealing with conflicts that cross borders.
I find it ironic that the claim is made that we are going to let Iraqi's handle Saddam so they can learn how to run a legal system given that we invaded and jailed him when he hasn't broken any laws.
squinney wrote:I don't have a problem with them trying him for the 140 villagers. My point is that WE have spent BILLIONS and have sent thousands of our kids over there to fight.
For what?
So the Iraqi's can try Saddam for ordering the death of 140 villagers?
Ya gotta be kidding me.
Did Saddam not break any international laws that he could be charged with? And if not, what are we doing over there?
As stated clearly by Bush any number of times, we invaded to resolve the question of whether Hussein had destroyed his WMD or simply hidden them better after years of evasion and deception by him. Had he succeeded in acquiring any of the really nasty sorts of WMD such as nukes or some bioweapons, just one of them could have been used to obliterate a western city and kill hundreds of thousands of people. How many ways and times do you need this explained?
squinney wrote:We are supposed to be a nation of laws. We have laws that govern the international community as well. We have a world court and the UN for dealing with conflicts that cross borders.
Yes, but the thing is that the US
don't recognize the ICC. The States
do recognize the UN, and accused Saddam of breaking UN resolutions, in order to invade subsequently
without an UN resolution.
What international law are the States abiding by in order to try somebody else for failing to abide by it?
squinney wrote:I find it ironic that the claim is made that we are going to let Iraqi's handle Saddam so they can learn how to run a legal system given that we invaded and jailed him when he hasn't broken any laws.
Had he merely moved his WMD effort further underground, he might have someday completed a nuke or a non-trivial bioweapon. He was certainly seeking them. Since just one could obliterate a major western city, we invaded to protect ourselves. Even had he developed such things and not actually detonated them, he could have used them to dominate the region. For instance, he might have one day announced that he had three working nukes, then re-invaded Kuwait and dared anyone to stop him. This ain't rocket science.
Brandon9000 wrote:As stated clearly by Bush any number of times, we invaded to resolve the question of whether Hussein had destroyed his WMD or simply hidden them better after years of evasion and deception by him. Had he succeeded in acquiring any of the really nasty sorts of WMD such as nukes or some bioweapons, just one of them could have been used to obliterate a western city and kill hundreds of thousands of people. How many ways and times do you need this explained?
Of course, this sets a precendent where any other nation could, based on your statement, invade the United States just in order to make sure that they aren't selling WMD to dangerous dictators. Given America's track record of doing so in the past (actually, giving away WMD for free), it would be paramount to the security of this any nation in order not to be bombed into oblivion with American WMD.
old europe wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:As stated clearly by Bush any number of times, we invaded to resolve the question of whether Hussein had destroyed his WMD or simply hidden them better after years of evasion and deception by him. Had he succeeded in acquiring any of the really nasty sorts of WMD such as nukes or some bioweapons, just one of them could have been used to obliterate a western city and kill hundreds of thousands of people. How many ways and times do you need this explained?
Of course, this sets a precendent where any other nation could, based on your statement, invade the United States just in order to make sure that they aren't selling WMD to dangerous dictators. Given America's track record of doing so in the past (actually, giving away WMD for free), it would be paramount to the security of this any nation in order not to be bombed into oblivion with American WMD.
This is trivially false logic. That is like saying that because it is illegal for felons to own guns, a felon could reciprocate by demanding that non-felons disarm.
The United States has never said that no one can own WMD. We have only said that of the many entities who will seek WMD in the future, a small fraction of individuals who seem likely to wreak havoc with such weapons should be prevented. Saddam Hussein was a ruthless dictator, virtually the personification of evil, had attempted to annex neighbors and had friendly relations with terrorists.
What you mean we, white boy?
Setanta wrote:What you mean we, white boy?
I'm sure you said it in one of these posts. Let me just have a look....
King Brandon the Last (let us hope) wrote:The United States has never said that no one can own WMD. We have only said that of the many entities who will seek WMD in the future, a small fraction of individuals who seem likely to wreak havoc with such weapons should be prevented. Saddam Hussein was a ruthless dictator, virtually the personification of evil, had attempted to annex neighbors and had friendly relations with terrorists.
You're using the royal pejorative--you have no business doing so. You speak neither for the government, nor the people of the United States.
