Huh? Iraq Invaded Cause Saddam Killed 140 Villagers?

Saddam Hussein was a ruthless dictator, virtually the personification of evil, had attempted to annex neighbors and had friendly relations with terrorists.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Saddam Hussein was a ruthless dictator, virtually the personification of evil, had attempted to annex neighbors and had friendly relations with terrorists.

But, evidently didn't break any laws. There are plenty of ruthless dictators. Do we invade them all? Then just turn them over to their countrymen to use as a legal learning tool?

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?

old europe wrote:

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?

I dunno. Evidently we aren't abiding by any 'cause we aren't charging him with anything. Even "we" if expanded to mean the UN or any coalition forces, are not holding him accountable for breaking any laws, so I don't guess he broke any.

squinney wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Saddam Hussein was a ruthless dictator, virtually the personification of evil, had attempted to annex neighbors and had friendly relations with terrorists.

But, evidently didn't break any laws. There are plenty of ruthless dictators. Do we invade them all? Then just turn them over to their countrymen to use as a legal learning tool?

It's like speaking to a child. No, we only invade the ones who are trying to perfect doomsday weapons that could inflict catastrophic injury on the U.S.

Brandon9000 wrote:

squinney wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Saddam Hussein was a ruthless dictator, virtually the personification of evil, had attempted to annex neighbors and had friendly relations with terrorists.

But, evidently didn't break any laws. There are plenty of ruthless dictators. Do we invade them all? Then just turn them over to their countrymen to use as a legal learning tool?

It's like speaking to a child. No, we only invade the ones who are trying to perfect doomsday weapons that could inflict catastrophic injury on the U.S.

There is no need to be rude, Brandon. Squinney asked a fair question.

There was no supportable evidence of "trying to perfect doomsday weapons" in Iraq.

There was, and is, fact evidence of same in North Korea. Why not go after North Korea? If you're going to be afraid, be afraid of a real threat.

Brandon - you are certainly not talking to a child on this end. You seem to be the one that doesn't get it.

We don't just invade countries that are a threat. It has been well publicized (finally) that it was known by this administration before the invasion that Saddam wasn't a threat and that evidence had to be faked in order to justify the invasion to the US citizens and the British.

Why is Saddam in jail? Because someone tried to assasinate him and in response he sent some of his soldiers to kill the people that tried to kill him. (That's the charges against him)

Remember GW saying "He tried to kill my Dad," and some claimed the invasion was just GW getting back at Saddam for that?

So, Saddam attempts to assasinate Bush Sr., and in response (10 years later) Jr sends his soldiers to get the person that tried to kill his Dad.

Saddam sits in jail.

GW sits in the White Hou... I mean Crawford.

We don't just invade countries that are a threat.

It has been well publicized (finally) that it was known by this administration before the invasion that Saddam wasn't a threat and that evidence had to be faked in order to justify the invasion to the US citizens and the British.

Why is Saddam in jail? Because someone tried to assasinate him and in response he sent some of his soldiers to kill the people that tried to kill him. (That's the charges against him).

I don't believe anyone is saying he did nothing, he has done stuff in the past. However, he was contained at the time we invaded Iraq. There was evidence that shed some doubts on the piling on of Weapons of mass destruction even before the war so there was no reason to invade when we did.

I don't believe anyone is saying he did nothing, he has done stuff in the past. However, he was contained at the time we invaded Iraq. There was evidence that shed some doubts on the piling on of Weapons of mass destruction even before the war so there was no reason to invade when we did.

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.

BTW, I did note the earlier use of "Annex his neighbor" by Brandon. Can't really call the Iraq / Kuwait thing an invasion of a sovereign nation and have that be a bad thing anymore, right?

I'd rather have him tried for whatever crime he committed against the world community / US. Without that, I find it difficult to justify an invasion and the deaths of so many thousands.

Think about that. The thousands upon thousands of soldiers and innocent Iraqi's that have been killed or maimed, for what? Because Saddam ordered that 140 be killed for having attempted to assisinate him?

(And those thousands I just mentioned don't even begin to include those being exposed to uranium enriched weapons in use over there.)

squinney wrote:

We don't just invade countries that are a threat.

Now this sentence is truly prize-winning. Any country that isn't willing, if other methods seem fruitless, to invade countries that pose lethal threats won't be around long..

Why is Saddam in jail? Because someone tried to assasinate him and in response he sent some of his soldiers to kill the people that tried to kill him. (That's the charges against him).

Brandon9000 wrote:

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.

The United States gave bioweapons to Saddam. By your logic the Kurds (provided they had the capability) could have invaded the US in order to "check out the place".

You liken Iraq or Saddam to a felon, and state that the US are a non-felon.

By what definition? What makes a nation a "felon"?

Proliferation of WMD? Cooperation with terrorists? Cooperation with dictatorships? Not abiding by the Geneva Conventions? Torture? Killing civilians? Disappearing people? Invading other countries?

Tell me, Brandon, what of the above does make Iraq a "felon"?

Brandon9000 wrote:

squinney wrote:

We don't just invade countries that are a threat.

Now this sentence is truly prize-winning. Any country that isn't willing, if other methods seem fruitless, to invade countries that pose lethal threats won't be around long..

Sure, when taken out of context. I already explained that Iraq was not a threat. We invaded Iraq. Hence, we do not just invade countries that are a threat. We also invade countries that are NOT a threat.

Brandon9000 wrote:

squinney wrote:

Why is Saddam in jail? Because someone tried to assasinate him and in response he sent some of his soldiers to kill the people that tried to kill him. (That's the charges against him).

Well, I guess that after torturing and murdering his his own citizens for decades, Hussein is kind of an innocent victim.

Didn't say he was nnocent or a victim. Just that what he is in jail for is as stated.