|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
posted December 14, 2003 06:31 PM |
|
|
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3317881.stm
That's a desription of how he was captured.
And here's some pictures released:
Before being shaved
And after
Just a thought, how do the Allies know they don't have a double?  (ok, so it was a cynical one, but I imagine similar accusations will arise sooner or later unless they prove beyond a doubt it is him)
oh and:
Quote:
the appeasers were willing to enslave a nation for their own economic gain and cowardice
So, it's permissable to wage war partly for the economic gain of your friends, but not permissable to be at peace (because your appeaser accusation is rubbish IMO) for profit? I, well I fail to see the logic there...
Secondly the fact that they have proved once again that they want Sadam gone is not related to, nor a commment on the popularity of the allied forces, or the wish of the Iraquis to see the allies remain.
I'm also very happy they've caught him, now can someone tell me what would be best to do with him? Death penalty or imprisonment? Should he be tried by the same war crimes courts of the UN that the US itself refuses to recognise? Can the US claim the right to try him when none of his crimes were against them? Must he be tried by Kuwaiti/Iraqui law, but in another country for safety/lack of bias (as in the lockerbee trials)? Will he be tried by international law?
Interesting how that one will pan out.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
vesuvius
Hero of Order
Honor Above all Else
|
posted December 14, 2003 07:45 PM |
|
|
damn,does this mean the republicans now have a better chance at the election?? We're all doomed.
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted December 14, 2003 07:52 PM |
|
|
Naturally, like Thatcher in this country once did after the falklands, I imagine he will ride the glory of this all the way to re-election
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
khayman
Promising
Famous Hero
Underachiever
|
|
posted December 14, 2003 08:02 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Naturally, like Thatcher in this country once did after the falklands, I imagine he will ride the glory of this all the way to re-election
I don't think there will be any 'glory riding' or gloating until Osama Been Hidin is found. Pres Bush's statement today was very business-like and unemotional; however, it was somewhat optimistic. We will just have to wait and see.
PH, Tony Blair must feel some weight lifted off his Labour Party shoulders, huh? He has probably sweated away about 30 lbs since this situation began.
Personally, I am waiting for Ross Perot to start campaigning for the upcoming election.
ROSS PEROT IN TWO-THOUSAND-FO! 
____________
"You must gather your party before venturing forth."
|
|
Aquaman333
Famous Hero
of the seven seas
|
|
posted December 14, 2003 08:06 PM |
|
|
This will help Bush in 2004, and it's a good thing, too. Can you imagine a nation under Dean? *shudders*
____________
"Brian, look! There's a message in my Alphabits! It says,
"OOOOOOO!"."
"Peter, those are Cheerios."-Family Guy
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted December 14, 2003 08:10 PM |
|
|
I've got no opinion on any of them, US politics bores me As long as this time the one who won the election actually becomes president it's fine by me....
I do think though that not even Bush would be stupid enough to be blatant about his use of this as a political advantage, but neither directly was Thatcher. The point is more that the effect of the trial and capture of a war criminal and being seen to do the right thing will more than make events like the scandal over Halliburton and such like dissapear into the background nicely in the eyes of the voters.
And Khayman, I find statements like "we got him" (from someone, I forget whom) not very well thought out, now they've "got him" the bigger question is what the hell to do with him. Whomever "he" may be 
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted December 14, 2003 08:26 PM |
|
|
Quote:
As long as this time the one who won the election actually becomes president it's fine by me....
Just like he did this time!
In Bush's speech there was no gloating, no "glory-riding. It was very business.
Oh, and for the record, British politics are much more boring!
Quote:
This will help Bush in 2004, and it's a good thing, too. Can you imagine a nation under Dean? *shudders*
Hell on earth comes to mind...
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted December 14, 2003 08:30 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Just like he did this time!
I'm suprised you can say that with a straight face. This depends on which american you speak to
Quote:
Oh, and for the record, British politics are much more boring!
I said it bored me I did not say it was more boring, pay attention.
And besides all of that, there are more subtle ways of winning elections than what you say in speeches...
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted December 14, 2003 08:38 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I'm suprised you can say that with a straight face. This depends on which american you speak to
One who knows how things work or those who are sore losers. Winning the states is what counts.
Quote:
I said it bored me I did not say it was more boring, pay attention.
And I said British politics is more boring than American politics, pay attention
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted December 14, 2003 08:46 PM |
|
|
Quote:
One who knows how things work or those who are sore losers. Winning the states is what counts.
So does having a brother in charge of one of them
Quote:
And I said British politics is more boring than American politics, pay attention
My appologies, I expected your remark to refer to what you quoted above it with some logical link, not a link totally off from it, I should know by now to expect something like this.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted December 14, 2003 08:50 PM |
|
|
I didn't even quote what you said about american politics, pay attention!
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted December 14, 2003 08:58 PM |
|
|
And that, ladies and gentleman is an example of making a pointless argument to divert from the fact that he's talking total rubbish. I wish I learnt sometimes not to debate with someone incapable of it...
*must remember*
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted December 14, 2003 09:35 PM |
|
|
I can see your post, unlike you, I don't miss entire posts by people I am refferring to your ability to make threads go off at a tangent from the more relevant points onto pedantic, barely related lines.
The example here being the main topics are Sadam's capture, the future trial, and so on. An issue I raised about possible corruption in the running of the post-iraq government you and others ignored totally. That I could understand, had you wished to discuss the important issue of the future trials, but, you have managed to try and make it into whether British or American politics is more interesting based on a comment I made which was merely my opinion. Following this you've made it into another debate on what each person may or may not have said and meant in their respective threads. You didn't even shorten the image to make it fit
Clearly you count winning pedantic arguments as more important than those issues. It certainly seems that way from the evidence here and elsewhere
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted December 14, 2003 11:24 PM |
|
|
Mods, can anyone please delete that above Wolfman post? Itīs off-topic, off-sense, and the oversized screenshot makes the whole thread page unreadable.
____________
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted December 14, 2003 11:25 PM |
|
|
<MOMENTARY OFF-TOPIC DIVERSION>
<KNEES TREMBLING; BREAKING OUT IN NERVOUS SWEAT>
I once knew a dog named Ryan. He was my best friend's dog. He was part Huskie, part German Shepard, and very intelligent and loyal. When she and her husband would wrestle around on the couch, Ryan's loyalties would get all mixed up because he didn't know they were playing. He would get very confused, begin whining, jumping up and down, pacing back and forth and panting because he loved them both and did not know which one of them to defend.
So if the two of you don't stop it I'm going to get really confused and begin whining, jumping up and down, pacing back and forth and panting.
My friends call this type of behavior on my part "pulling a Ryan."
It will not be pretty.
<BACK TO TOPIC -- PLEEEEASE???>
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted December 15, 2003 12:02 AM |
|
|
I deleted mine, now if PH deletes his last 2 posts, everyone will be better off.
Where will Saddam be tried? In Iraq? The Haugue? (sp?)
What a wonderful early Christmas present this is.
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted December 15, 2003 12:19 AM |
|
|
In the international war crimes courts under UN supervision would be best to me.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted December 15, 2003 12:22 AM |
|
|
<TURNS TO PH AND BATS HER EYES SEVERAL TIMES WITH AN IMPLORING LOOK ON HER FACE>
The Iraqui government has made several noises today about wanting to be in control of the proceedings, and that they would be fair and would not be some kangaroo summary execution like the way Saddam ran things. Personally I think we should let them have him. I don't think we need to be concerned about "justice" being meted if we should do that. Frankly I think they have the greatest right to be in charge -- he was THEIR dictator after all...
Anyone want to offer a counter-argument in favor of the coalition/Hague running an international tribunal?
<EDIT> -- PH we must have been posting at the same time!!! I did not see the above post when I posted. So why do you think them instead of the Iraquis?
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted December 15, 2003 12:25 AM |
|
|
I want the Iraqis to have him. We shouldn't worry about him not getting the death penalty. "Do unto others..." "What goes around comes around" That sort of thing.
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted December 15, 2003 12:46 AM |
|
|
Well in order:
US court/Laws: Strictly speaking, none or not many of the crimes were committed against the USA, therefore the US has no right to charge Sadam alone. Secondly any trial brought by the USA is likely to be accused of bias, and this would gift the defence lawyers a claim of unfair trial and/or jury, something I believe would damage the case, if not throw it out.
Iraq court: Danger of bias again, laws currently likely to be rather out of date if taken on pre-Sadam laws, or biased if taken on Sadam laws. Any trial in Iraq itself would be inviting the resistance to spring Sadam, not a good idea. To a certain extent this argument brings the same to the Kuwaiti or similar courts. This option also leaves itself open to accusations of trial by the mob due to the anger of the people of the country.
Neutral country court: More safety, but which law to use? Adopting the law of those the crimes were committed against would be a nightmare due to the differing laws between say Israel, Kuwait, USA and Iraq. Using said country's laws is counter-productive as they have no right to try Sadam due to no crime being committed against them. This to me means only one option:
Neutral country, International law: Due to it's nature, it would be harder to argue bias against Sadam because it is trial under a law accepted by a majority of nations. Safety would be less of an issue, as would the issue about conflicting law and sentence.
There's only one problem, the recent UN war crimes courts that were set up have one glaring omission in their ranks of countries accepting their rulings no matter what. That ommission would be the USA itself. Could prove hard to persuade the international community you are sincere about accepting the decision of the court if you already refuse to accept it's decision on your own troops and country...
I think it would be nice that Iraq has a hand in the proceedings, but we should remember why we claim to have done this. We claimed to be upholding international order and safety, therefore we should not then throw people to the proverbial dogs to satisfy the mob justice mentality. I am not claiming they have no right to feel that way, but we are supposed to be civilised, as civilised countries we should show the "rogue nations" that no matter what, in this country you recieve justice. We should not be lowering ourselves to the mentality of Sadam and others by denying people justice.
To me one of the most sincere forms of a truly just system and government is that we treat even our most hated enemies in a fair and just manner. In the same way that it's easy to be democratic when dealing with those who agree with you, it's easy to be just and fair when dealing with petty criminals. The true sense of a nations sense of justice is when faced with our worst enemy. By all means, lock him away, execute him, whatever you wish, but for gods sake do the right thing and rise above the mentality of those we have deposed. We already have a rather dubious claim to the moral high ground here, lets not let it become more dubious.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
