christelsabine 1 #26 October 7, 2004 OK. Question my intelligence. Nothing ever ruffles me less. And yes, you're right. It's not bothering me too much. But enough to keep me thinking. SD is in 'your' hands. You are at the sources. What will happen to him? What's surprising me is, the word 'liberal' in that connections seems to have an ugly touch. Why that? Come on and explain, Texan. dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #27 October 7, 2004 QuoteDone, but please explain the difference between liberty and freedom. Freedom describes the state of a person. Libery describes how that person is treated. A prisoner who was justly tried and convicted to prison has experienced liberty but is no longer free. Honestly, I can't figure out what either you or Christel are talking about. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
base283 0 #28 October 7, 2004 My prediction is that Saddam will be detained because to let him go would be proof that USA flailed. keeping people thinking that there is other sides to the story seems to be important. A conservative is a 10yr established liberal. screw all that quantification. If Saddam is not guilty of the charges (as reported by the media), he should be set free. Take care space Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #29 October 7, 2004 What charges are you talking about? First of all, he was indicted by the interim Iraqi gov't. Second of all, most of the charges have nothing to do with WMD or Al Queda. And even if that weren't the case, since when do media reports equal not guilty verdicts? I just really have no clue what point you're trying to make. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #30 October 7, 2004 Saddam must be held in custody. He is guilty of the only act that really matters... Losing a war against the US. Thus the US will keep to it's long held tradition of abuse and lack of justice toward those who it defeats! Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ScottishJohn 25 #31 October 7, 2004 I thought that he would be judged by his own people under iraqi laws. He has comited enough crimes against his own people to warrent his arrest and tria.---------------------------------------------------------------------- If you think my attitude stinks you should smell my fingers Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #32 October 7, 2004 Exactly, that's why this thread confuses me. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
YahooLV 0 #33 October 7, 2004 he's still a war criminal who invaded another sovereign state (Iran) Kuwait...http://www.curtisglennphotography.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cloudseeker2001 0 #34 October 7, 2004 QuoteFree Tommy Chong instead! FREE TOMMY CHONG! FREE TOMMY CHONG! Damn Straight! "Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance, others mean and rueful of the western dream" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cloudseeker2001 0 #35 October 7, 2004 Quotehe's still a war criminal who invaded another sovereign state (Iran) Kuwait... And who walked out of world court and invaded a sovereign state unjustly? Who took world law into their own hands? Who are the war criminals? Where are the weapons? "Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance, others mean and rueful of the western dream" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
miked10270 0 #36 October 8, 2004 QuoteI thought that he would be judged by his own people under iraqi laws. He has comited enough crimes against his own people to warrent his arrest and tria. Exactly. He lost. Which Iraqis are trying him? It wouldn't be the ones who're taking over from the Coalition Administration - you know, the Interim Government? Or will it be the new, independent, Iraqi Government. The one that'll emerge from the elections which are only going to be held in "stable" parts of Iraq (those firmly under Coalition control)? Let's be blunt. Iraq is not a country. Iraq is a set of lines drawn by America and Britain post WWI in the break up of the Austro-Hungarian empire. Without regard for the ethnicity of the people living there. This was done AFTER deliberately raising the Arab, Jewish and Iranian ethnic and national identities during WWI to gain allies against Germany and Austro-Hungary. The net result is that Iraq is in fact composed of bits of 3 seperate ethnic identities, all of whom were set at each other's throats during WWI (or did you think Lawrence of Arabia et al just spent their time out there racing against trains and stuff...?) So, having raised ethnic identities, and caused ethnic divides and violence, Britain and America drew "lines in the sand" through the middle of those ethnic hatreds... And wonder of wonders!!!! there is a problem in the region. More importantly there is a problem in the region which we depend upon to fuel our western civilisation! In striving for a "Middle-East Balance" for eighty years, we have created a "Middle-East Problem" which may well take another 80 years to fix. Of course, the oil will be gone by then so we can maybe just ignore the region. Or am I just being cynical. (that's a rhetorical question). Mike. Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable. Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #37 October 8, 2004 QuoteFree Tommy Chong instead! FREE TOMMY CHONG! FREE TOMMY CHONG! ATTICA....ATTICA.....ATTICA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Croc 0 #38 October 8, 2004 The only reason that the world knows that there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is because we went looking for them. We called Saddam on his bluff and he lost. Had he simply cooperated he would still be in power. No Monday morning quarterback ever threw an interception."Here's a good specimen of my own wisdom. Something is so, except when it isn't so." Charles Fort, commenting on the many contradictions of astronomy Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mardigrasbob 0 #39 October 8, 2004 What an idiot,He didn't have the weapons. He could have pulled a Kdafhi and been free today to be a tyrant. What kind of moron bluffs a guy who's holding a royal flush! Saddam is toast! The Iraqi will quickly try, convict, and execute his Bathe ass. He is a survivor but I'd bet they will publicly hang him, while people hit him with their shoes. As far as the war goes; write a fricken history book. It's over. There will continue to be insurgents but they will slowly be eliminated. Bush is not through, by a long sight! --------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,991 #40 October 8, 2004 >We called Saddam on his bluff and he lost. Had he simply >cooperated he would still be in power. He did cooperate. Blix's last report said he was cooperating, and in a few months he would be able to determine once and for all if Hussein had disarmed like he claimed he had. We called Saddam on his bluff and he backed down. But we didn't want to wait any more; we wanted our war. And we got it. And now we are stuck with the consequences. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nigel99 473 #41 October 8, 2004 If I understand you correctly then focusing on other aspects of Saddams life makes his overthrow a worth while byproduct of the war. While there is debate over WMD and the extent of his terrorist connections I do not believe there is any dispute over his human rights records. It is therefore conceivable that he could and should be held to account for his human rights & probably financial corruption charges.Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
akarunway 1 #42 October 8, 2004 It is therefore conceivable that he could and should be held to account for his human rights & probably financial corruption charges. ----------------------------- So. Explain to me what gives the USA the God given right to be the world FUCKIN POLICE? We don't give a fuck about the U.N. Why should my tax dollars and my childrens taxs dollars have to pay for all this BS? I hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nigel99 473 #43 October 8, 2004 In this instance it is a case of you make your bed you lie in it. The US & UK took it upon themselves to go to war in Iraq and therefore it is us poor sods who should pick up the bill. The UN nations that did not partake are not obligied to clean up our mess. I am not sure the world appreciate the USA being the police unilateraly either... I am not sure enough on the facts of who is funding the trial and imprisonment of Saddam as an individual to know who is footing that particular bill though?Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydiverton 0 #44 October 8, 2004 Saddam must be FRIED. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Using your droque to gain stability is a bad habit, Especially when you are jumping a sport rig Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,027 #45 October 8, 2004 QuoteIt sounds like you are describing the USA, take care, space Oh, I took great care with that statement.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Botellines 0 #46 October 8, 2004 Saddam will get an (un)fair trial in Iraq, he will be hanged from the neck and his face hit with a shoe. Now, i don´t think that he doesn´t deserve it or anything like that. However, the most curious spectator will be Kim whatever from N.Korea. When he sees SH fate, you can be dammed sure that he will make stock WMD to use it against you if diplomacy fails at some point. So much for the war on terror. The wisest thing would be to hand over SH to an international court where he will be kept in jail forever. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 236 #47 October 8, 2004 QuoteQuoteIf the media is right about there was no WMD or terrorist connections from this dude. then he should be set free. or why not? take care, space Negative, he's still a war criminal who invaded another sovereign state (Iran) that presented no threat. Even though their leaders were nasty buggers who had no respect for human rights, he shouldn't have invaded. Wait a minute. Are you suggesting that heads of state that invade other sovereign states without a justifiable casus belli are war criminals? I'm pretty sure that Saddam Hussein was convinced that Iran was at least thinking real hard about possessing Weapons of Mass Destruction, and that they probably had some terrorists around somewhere at some time or another. Gee, you make an unprovoked attack sound like a bad thing. I think that Saddam Hussein is simply misunderstood, and agree that he should be set free if he promises to behave himself. Blue skies, Winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
winsor 236 #48 October 8, 2004 Quote>We called Saddam on his bluff and he lost. Had he simply >cooperated he would still be in power. He did cooperate. Blix's last report said he was cooperating, and in a few months he would be able to determine once and for all if Hussein had disarmed like he claimed he had. We called Saddam on his bluff and he backed down. But we didn't want to wait any more; we wanted our war. And we got it. And now we are stuck with the consequences. At the time I kept thinking of the scene at the beginning of "RoboCop," where the fully robotic cop was being demonstrated in its beta form. The robot tells the executive, who has picked up a pistol, to drop his weapon. After the executive drops the weapon, he is repeatedly instructed to drop the weapon or face the consequences. The unarmed executive is thereafter blown to smithereens. The Onion had a poignant bit where the US warned the Iraqi government that they weren't fooled by their compliance, and further adherence by the Iraqis to UN mandates would be interpreted as an act of war. I wish it had all been a joke. Blue skies, Winsor Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Botellines 0 #49 October 8, 2004 Yeah, he had bad intel about kuwait, that is why he invaded... errr, i mean he did a preemptive strike. about gassing the kurds... bad intel too, he thought they were going to use WMD first. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #50 October 8, 2004 Quotehe's still a war criminal who invaded another sovereign state (Iran) Kuwait Oh yeah, and he is in good company, right? dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
