Saddam May Hang Within 24 Hours

[Nefarious]

Man I get sick of the two labels that get lobbied at anyone that questions the actions of the status quo: anti-semite and anti-american. They get lobbied about as a means to try and shut people up but the more they are used the less effective they become because it becomes all rather predictable and people become desensitized to it - not least because they are often used flagrantly when the situation just does not adequately justify such charges.

Nazi apologist.

Oh heck - did I miss a term or is this a new one?

[Guest]

Man I get sick of the two labels that get lobbied at anyone that questions the actions of the status quo: anti-semite and anti-american. They get lobbied about as a means to try and shut people up but the more they are used the less effective they become because it becomes all rather predictable and people become desensitized to it - not least because they are often used flagrantly when the situation just does not adequately justify such charges.

Nazi apologist.

Oh heck - did I miss a term or is this a new one?

If the shoe fits . . .

[Guest]

Saddam the coward is hung: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhcsnaf4148

[Guest]

Another: http://youtubevideo.pbwiki.com/

[one_irish_rover]

How many Iraqi deaths are on America's and George Bush's balance sheet for the "war against terror." Hundreds of thousands. That's what I call hypocricy

Clearly you are lacking an education like all the other Bush critics.
According to International law, The deaths of Iraqis/Afghans are the fault of Saddam Hussein and the Taliban (note: not Osama Bin Laden).
It is the responsibility of the defending force to ensure that their civilians are placed away from areas of conflict. But Saddam and the Taliban did not do this. Instead, they placed forces amongst civilians to use them as a Human Shield.
By rights, An attacking force is allowed to engage any area/region where there are 'hostiles', and any civilian casualties are added to Saddams/Talibans list, not Americas.

However, If the USA or any attacking force targets an area populated with civilians and that area has no military significance, the death of any civilians are the responsibilty of the attacking force.
In Americas defence, there has been very few accounts of such incidents, therefore they have commited no war crime.

Sure, there have been coalition troops abusing and killing civilians, but this is an individual act which has not been sanctioned by the military.

There are also laws justifying 'collateral damage'. In that, damage to infrastructure and human casualties.
For example, if the coalition dropped a 1000 pound bomb on 100 civilians in order to kill one terrorist or just to destroy his home, that would be illegal.
However, If they dropped a 1000 pound bomb on 10 civilians in order to kill 3 terrorists, that would be acceptable.

You will find that the US military are very very strict when it comes to following the Rules of Engagement, which are based on International Law.

If you have a problem with the actions of the US, then perhaps your thread should be attacking International Law, not those who obide by it.

What on Earth are you babbling about? (1) Saddam Hussein has been in a prison cell since 2003. (2) The Bush White House openly rejects International Law. They make up their own laws.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/lawindex.htm

Wake up already!

You anti-Semite.

LOL Your brain is fried, mate.

[one_irish_rover]

"The Bush White House openly rejects International Law. They make up their own laws."

What bullshit.

What do you know about international law?

What are the specific sources of international law?

Where is international law memorialized?

Who interprets international law?

Who decides whether a country has violated international law?

How specifically does "the Bush White House openly reject[] International Law"?

How specifically did the Bush White House "make up their own laws"?

I posted a link, read it. Here's a google search, dimwit. Plenty of scholarship on the topic. I can't even believe you seriously bothered to write the questions you did.

http://www.google.com/search?q=bush+international+law&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

[Nefarious]

one word - deflection

[mundheim]

"The Bush White House openly rejects International Law. They make up their own laws."

What bullshit.

What do you know about international law?

What are the specific sources of international law?

Where is international law memorialized?

Who interprets international law?

Who decides whether a country has violated international law?

How specifically does "the Bush White House openly reject[] International Law"?

How specifically did the Bush White House "make up their own laws"?

I posted a link, read it. Here's a google search, dimwit. Plenty of scholarship on the topic. I can't even believe you seriously bothered to write the questions you did.

http://www.google.com/search?q=bush+international+law&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

I am not surprised at your inability to answer my questions.

I know the answers to my questions without resort to google.

Opinions -- "scholarly" or otherwise -- are of no moment to whether a state has violated international law or "openly rejects International Law."

You have no clue what "international law" is.

Here's a hint: "International law" is not set forth in one place like U.S. Code.

You are in water above your head; now wade back to the baby pool.

[Nefarious]

one word - deflection

one word -- asshole

I like it!

[Guest]

Your betrayed your ignorance by supporting your tripe with a link to Global Policy Forum, a partisan left-wing activist group: http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/lawindex.htm

If this is your idea of an adjudicative body or even of "scholarship," then you don't even belong in the baby pool on this subject.

Haha i Couldn't agree more. Did you click on the 'about us' tab and have a look at the board members? There is one in there whos credit included something to do with real estate!!!
Sure, they are all people with degrees, but even some KKK leaders have degrees and that sure as heck doesn't make their opinions right.
Lets face it, the guy is an idiot and that is why he cannot answer your questions re: international law

[Nefarious]

one word - deflection

one word -- asshole

I like it!

It was directed to you, though.

*swoons*

[Guest0209]

What on Earth are you babbling about? (1) Saddam Hussein has been in a prison cell since 2003. (2) The Bush White House openly rejects International Law. They make up their own laws.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/lawindex.htm

Wake up already!

Your link says alot about your post. No wonder you are so brainwashed if you think that information from an extreme liberalist site like that is 'neutral'.
That is the same as a redneck saying that he gets his information from the KKK.

And you are correct. Saddam was in Jail from 2003. Did you notice how I paraphrased the legislation as saying 'the defending force', not 'the Government Leader'.
We destroyed and defeated the Iraqi Military in 21 days. After a few weeks we began fighting insurgent guerillas, some of which were ex-iraqi soldiers and alot of which were jihadis who always hated the US and were dying for an excuse to fight us. DO you really believe that all these people From Saudi Arabia, Iran, Jordan just woke up one day and decided to chant 'death to America'??
It is an idealogy that has been brewing for a long long time. Now we are fighting the 'war on terror' in Iraq.
The Iraqi soldiers that were taken as Prisoners of War were mostly released right away. The people who are captured now are being held as 'unlawful combatants'. SO no, Hussein does not have current deaths blamed on him. These deaths are attributed to the individual groups who are involved in the insurgency.

This is where the war went wrong. Rumsfeld and Bush made some shocking calls when it came to war tactics. They should never have let the insurgency evolve.

If you cannot understand this, you will never understand. So I suggest you find yourself a rock to crawl under for the next decade.

[Guest]

What on Earth are you babbling about? (1) Saddam Hussein has been in a prison cell since 2003. (2) The Bush White House openly rejects International Law. They make up their own laws.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/lawindex.htm

Wake up already!

Your link says alot about your post. No wonder you are so brainwashed if you think that information from an extreme liberalist site like that is 'neutral'.
That is the same as a redneck saying that he gets his information from the KKK.

And you are correct. Saddam was in Jail from 2003. Did you notice how I paraphrased the legislation as saying 'the defending force', not 'the Government Leader'.
We destroyed and defeated the Iraqi Military in 21 days. After a few weeks we began fighting insurgent guerillas, some of which were ex-iraqi soldiers and alot of which were jihadis who always hated the US and were dying for an excuse to fight us. DO you really believe that all these people From Saudi Arabia, Iran, Jordan just woke up one day and decided to chant 'death to America'??
It is an idealogy that has been brewing for a long long time. Now we are fighting the 'war on terror' in Iraq.
The Iraqi soldiers that were taken as Prisoners of War were mostly released right away. The people who are captured now are being held as 'unlawful combatants'. SO no, Hussein does not have current deaths blamed on him. These deaths are attributed to the individual groups who are involved in the insurgency.

This is where the war went wrong. Rumsfeld and Bush made some shocking calls when it came to war tactics. They should never have let the insurgency evolve.

If you cannot understand this, you will never understand. So I suggest you find yourself a rock to crawl under for the next decade.

Back again to talk more S***

[Nefarious]

Things to keep an eye out for in the future.

There is a general Sada who claims that Saddam unloaded a whole bunch of WMD, including chemical weapons components, into Syria under the guise of flood relief in 2002, shortly before the invasion of Iraq. He made this claim some time ago, but didn't seem to be taken too seriously by the US Government for some reason. Sada was a christian military general who claims that even though he didn't go along with what Saddam wanted all the time, and was incarcerated by his son for failing to execute US pilots back in the first gulf war, Saddam kept him around because 'Sada gave it to him straight'. Sada was also part of the interim government set up by the US prior to the democractic elections in Iraq. Given that Saddam tended to dispatch of those who opposed him, some question the credibility of Sada's tale.

Israeli site Debka claims that weapons were buried somewhere in Syria. From what I have been able to glean from information about the Syrian flood, Iraq did indeed provide direct aid to Syria, and I've not been able to find a list of the goods that were provided. At first I thought this was unlikely because of the sanctions imposed upon Iraq - how could planes and trucks be allowed to move goods into Syria without anyone checking what was going? The line on this is that the weapons inspectors had not been in the country since 1998, and it was claimed that Saddam was developing his stockpiles during the four years prior to the start of the war.

Will anything come of this? Will stockpiles of WMD's and biological/chemical agents be found buried in Syria that can be concretely traced to an Iraqi origin and also concretely be proved to have been developed between 1998 and 2002? The burden of proof lies outside of Iraq. The implications of such evidence would certainly put a different perspective on the justification for war. To date, it is hearsay.

Commentary from Israeli officials on Saddams death also brought mixed reactions. More than one noted that he faced his death with dignity - did not crumble or wail for mercy. They also noted that with the removal of Saddam, Iraq is now open to the influence of Iran through the Shia majority - which is leading them to call for pre-emptive action against Iran.

[Guest]

The implications of such evidence would certainly put a different perspective on the justification for war. To date, it is hearsay.

The war was initially justified for other reasons, although the specter of chemical warfare in downtown America was frightening. Saddam was an order of magnitude worse than Slobodan Milošević for instance.

I didn't hear of anyone crying about Milošević removal from power in Yugoslavia. Could it be that 1) Germany owed a hundred billion US dollars to Yugoslavia and the breakup covered their debt? Maybe France and Germany were trading partners with huge debts owed by Iraq and were against anything that might forgive those debts, like a new Democracy? 2) Could it be that the West consists of cowards able to beat up a defenseless country like Yugoslavia without a qualm, with pride, but give the West a little more fight like Iraq and we run in fear while our media outlets spew their bowels on the military and intelligence departments ?