Why would anyone claim the Iraq war was a success ?

[freedombecki]

History and the State Department's current travel warning to Iraq do not agree with you.

The 5 worst crimes of Saddam Hussein

FBI Report on Hussein Part I, pp 1-94

FBI Report on Hussein Part II, pp 95 - 132

US Department of State Travel Warning to Iraq, 4/12/2011

The government doesn't agree with me? Well there's a shocker.

In all seriousness though, we all know that Saddam was a bad guy. I don't think anybody disputes that. The point is that he was not a threat to the United States, was not the next Hitler, and had no WMD's. This was all war propaganda, and we all know it.

And we targeted him for death and every terrorist loving leader in the middle east knows it.

Apparently you weren't aware Saddam Hussein was tried by a court of his peers:

Saddam Hussein Trial

Special Court and Legal Process | Featured Articles | Related Resources
Disclaimer: The Saddam Hussein Trial site is current as of our addition of the Appellate Decision on July 3, 2007. There will be no new updates to the website and it is presented as a resource for future International Criminal Law cases.
This website is intended to provide the viewer with essential information related to the relevant trials. It will also set out a selection of reference materials that will further explain important aspects of the trials. In making this selection, the Law Library of Congress does not endorse or attest to the authenticity of any such referenced materials or information.
In addition to viewers in general, the following of the development of the trial of Saddam Hussein, which started in October 2005, may be of special interest to legal scholars of international criminal law and the seekers of universal justice.
Special Court and Legal Process

• Introduction
• Background
• Historical Context
• Tribunal
• First Prosecution
• Future Prosecution
• Legal Process

Featured Articles

• Capital Punishment
• The Legality Principle
• Comments on the Indictment
• Appellate Decision

You really should look into it to improve your overall understanding of the process that went on in an 8,000 Mesopotamian court.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

The government doesn't agree with me? Well there's a shocker.

In all seriousness though, we all know that Saddam was a bad guy. I don't think anybody disputes that. The point is that he was not a threat to the United States, was not the next Hitler, and had no WMD's. This was all war propaganda, and we all know it.

And we targeted him for death and every terrorist loving leader in the middle east knows it.

Apparently you weren't aware Saddam Hussein was tried by a court of his peers:

Saddam Hussein Trial

Special Court and Legal Process | Featured Articles | Related Resources
Disclaimer: The Saddam Hussein Trial site is current as of our addition of the Appellate Decision on July 3, 2007. There will be no new updates to the website and it is presented as a resource for future International Criminal Law cases.
This website is intended to provide the viewer with essential information related to the relevant trials. It will also set out a selection of reference materials that will further explain important aspects of the trials. In making this selection, the Law Library of Congress does not endorse or attest to the authenticity of any such referenced materials or information.
In addition to viewers in general, the following of the development of the trial of Saddam Hussein, which started in October 2005, may be of special interest to legal scholars of international criminal law and the seekers of universal justice.
Special Court and Legal Process

• Introduction
• Background
• Historical Context
• Tribunal
• First Prosecution
• Future Prosecution
• Legal Process

Featured Articles

• Capital Punishment
• The Legality Principle
• Comments on the Indictment
• Appellate Decision

You really should look into it to improve your overall understanding of the process that went on in an 8,000 Mesopotamian court.

Im well aware of that. Im also aware that his trial and subsequent death would not have happened were it not for us.

 

[freedombecki]

The government doesn't agree with me? Well there's a shocker.

In all seriousness though, we all know that Saddam was a bad guy. I don't think anybody disputes that. The point is that he was not a threat to the United States, was not the next Hitler, and had no WMD's. This was all war propaganda, and we all know it.

And we targeted him for death and every terrorist loving leader in the middle east knows it.

Just because he was a bad guy doesn't mean we had any right to remove him.

Sorry you think that. Saddam Hussein was removed by resolution of the UN. Next time I go to the hours of doing your homework so you will not speak wrongfully, read it.

You're now speaking based on what nobody knows but those who followed my link to the Library of Congress careful documentation of the trial of Saddam Hussein.

I know you're dying to hang this around a former President's neck, but the facts are against you and in his corner.

Saddam Hussein's henchmen assassinated the first judge who was to have tried him. Most of them have also been tried and sentenced to death in the 8,000-year-old Mesopotamian court who was fed up with 25 years of Saddam Hussein's use of gas against Iraqi citizens, point-blank murders of the Iraqi parliament members who didn't kiss his rotten ass.

Since you must have been preoccupied with other matters when these things went down, you now have the opportunity to stand corrected of your errors or join the big liar's club around here.

I don't give a damn which you pick.

 

[freedombecki]

And we targeted him for death and every terrorist loving leader in the middle east knows it.

Apparently you weren't aware Saddam Hussein was tried by a court of his peers:

Saddam Hussein Trial

Special Court and Legal Process | Featured Articles | Related Resources
Disclaimer: The Saddam Hussein Trial site is current as of our addition of the Appellate Decision on July 3, 2007. There will be no new updates to the website and it is presented as a resource for future International Criminal Law cases.
This website is intended to provide the viewer with essential information related to the relevant trials. It will also set out a selection of reference materials that will further explain important aspects of the trials. In making this selection, the Law Library of Congress does not endorse or attest to the authenticity of any such referenced materials or information.
In addition to viewers in general, the following of the development of the trial of Saddam Hussein, which started in October 2005, may be of special interest to legal scholars of international criminal law and the seekers of universal justice.
Special Court and Legal Process

• Introduction
• Background
• Historical Context
• Tribunal
• First Prosecution
• Future Prosecution
• Legal Process

Featured Articles

• Capital Punishment
• The Legality Principle
• Comments on the Indictment
• Appellate Decision

You really should look into it to improve your overall understanding of the process that went on in an 8,000 Mesopotamian court.

Im well aware of that. Im also aware that his trial and subsequent death would not have happened were it not for us.

Our boys captured the man and read him his rights. He went peacefully from his spider hole and awaited his trial as the Iraqis decided how they would proceed with the help of the United Nations.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

And we targeted him for death and every terrorist loving leader in the middle east knows it.

Just because he was a bad guy doesn't mean we had any right to remove him.

Sorry you think that. Saddam Hussein was removed by resolution of the UN. Next time I go to the hours of doing your homework so you will not speak wrongfully, read it.

You're now speaking based on what nobody knows but those who followed my link to the Library of Congress careful documentation of the trial of Saddam Hussein.

I know you're dying to hang this around a former President's neck, but the facts are against you and in his corner.

Saddam Hussein's henchmen assassinated the first judge who was to have tried him. Most of them have also been tried and sentenced to death in the 8,000-year-old Mesopotamian court who was fed up with 25 years of Saddam Hussein's use of gas against Iraqi citizens, point-blank murders of the Iraqi parliament members who didn't kiss his rotten ass.

Since you must have been preoccupied with other matters when these things went down, you now have the opportunity to stand corrected of your errors or join the big liar's club around here.

I don't give a damn which you pick.

Actually Saddam was removed by the U.S. troops that invaded Iraq.

 

[Contumacious]

[Apparently you weren't aware Saddam Hussein was tried by a court of his peers:

Bullshit.

1- Saddam was a Sunni ; he was tried entirely by shiites

2- NBC News requested the ACTUAL TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS they were REFUSED - what you provided are BULLSHIT SUMMARIES

3- Cimes against humanity are tried in the ICJ at the Hague;

4- War Criminal Bush II wanted to silence Saddam so he ordered him summarily executed without the benefit of a fair trial.

.

 

[del]

Because Iraq no longer poses a threat to anyone and saddam is dead.

/thread

It never posed a threat to anyone, least of all the U.S., and now it poses a threat to itself.

The tiny nation Iraq invaded, raped and pillaged would like to have a word with you.

you mean the one we threw iraq out of 20 years ago that iraq never went back to?

that one?

massive fail

 

[del]

The tiny nation Iraq invaded, raped and pillaged would like to have a word with you.

Which would have been more than a decade before the Iraq war. Not to mention our ambassador basically giving Saddam the green light on that one.

Uhh... what happened under GWB was the continuation of hostilities as a result of violations of the terms of cease fire... it was the same conflict... unfortunately the pussy UN and our pussy leadership at the time, did not allow us to finish the job properly the first time around, else the whole second part of the conflict would not have been needed

bullshit-there was zero need to go into iraq a second time, and all it did was make things geometrically worse.

have a nice day

 

[del]

Uhh... what happened under GWB was the continuation of hostilities as a result of violations of the terms of cease fire... it was the same conflict... unfortunately the pussy UN and our pussy leadership at the time, did not allow us to finish the job properly the first time around, else the whole second part of the conflict would not have been needed

The continuation under false pretenses.

Even 1 violation of the cease fire justified continuation of action... there were NUMEROUS violations along the way.... sorry Charlie... whether you want to focus only on partially faulty intel on WoMD is your choice... but there were validated violations continually over the years

and again- bullshit

they posed no threat to US, and frankly, i don't give a fuck about anyone else

 

[del]

History and the State Department's current travel warning to Iraq do not agree with you.

The 5 worst crimes of Saddam Hussein

FBI Report on Hussein Part I, pp 1-94

FBI Report on Hussein Part II, pp 95 - 132

US Department of State Travel Warning to Iraq, 4/12/2011

The government doesn't agree with me? Well there's a shocker.

In all seriousness though, we all know that Saddam was a bad guy. I don't think anybody disputes that. The point is that he was not a threat to the United States, was not the next Hitler, and had no WMD's. This was all war propaganda, and we all know it.

And we targeted him for death and every terrorist loving leader in the middle east knows it.

big fucking deal- it wasn't worth a single american life

 

[freedombecki]

[Apparently you weren't aware Saddam Hussein was tried by a court of his peers:

Bullshit.

1- Saddam was a Sunni ; he was tried entirely by shiites

2- NBC News requested the ACTUAL TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS they were REFUSED - what you provided are BULLSHIT SUMMARIES

3- Cimes against humanity are tried in the ICJ at the Hague;

4- War Criminal Bush II wanted to silence Saddam so he ordered him summarily executed without the benefit of a fair trial.

.

That is not how the trial went. I followed the trial every day on the news. Saddam was tried by Iraqis, his peers. I'm an American. If I engaged in murdering a million and a half people, I would not expect to demand a member of the bar of my religion, I'd expect the current US Attorney to try me for my crimes.

That's exactly what the Iraqis thought too. They tried him in the sanctity of their own 8,000-year-old justice system as follows:

"Iraq's High Tribunal on Sunday found Saddam Hussein guilty of crimes against humanity and sentenced him to hang for the 1982 killing of 148 Shiites in the city of Dujail."
​

Also, "A judge working on the special tribunal established to try Saddam Hussein​ and other senior officials in his toppled regime was assassinated Tuesday in Baghdad. Judge Barwez Mohammed Mahmoud and his brother were killed Tuesday in northern Baghdad’s Azamyiah district, police 1st Lt. Oday Kayoun told The Associated Press."
​

You think that sick bastard wasn't a threat to anyone?

 

[Contumacious]

[Apparently you weren't aware Saddam Hussein was tried by a court of his peers:

Bullshit.

1- Saddam was a Sunni ; he was tried entirely by shiites

2- NBC News requested the ACTUAL TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS they were REFUSED - what you provided are BULLSHIT SUMMARIES

3- Cimes against humanity are tried in the ICJ at the Hague;

4- War Criminal Bush II wanted to silence Saddam so he ordered him summarily executed without the benefit of a fair trial.

.

That is not how the trial went. I followed the trial every day on the news.

BULLSHIT - PART DEUX

Showtrial in Baghdad

by Eric Margolis


Saddam Hussein's trial in Baghdad has become a circus. The presiding judge refuses to return to court, and defense lawyers have been murdered.

What to make of this spectacle? Emotionally, it's good to see the tyrant who terrorized so many on trial for his life. But morally and legally, Saddam's trial is a travesty of justice. This is an old-fashioned Soviet-style show trial set up by U.S. occupation authorities.

Its goal is not to determine Saddam's guilt or innocence, but to justify the U.S. invasion of Iraq — which, by the way, was a blatant violation of international law.

The court lacks any legal basis, being created by the puppet regime installed by the U.S. after the invasion.

Saddam has no proper legal defense. Witnesses remain secret and beyond cross-examination. Defense witnesses risk murder by Shia hit squads.

Pre-trial publicity — the vast propaganda campaign by the U.S. to demonize Saddam — and Iraqi TV programs (controlled by U.S. authorities) about Saddam's alleged crimes, would trigger a mistrial in any proper legal system.

In short, a kangaroo court, designed to find Saddam guilty and probably order his execution.


Showtrial in Baghdad by Eric Margolis

.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Why would anyone claim the Iraq war was a success ?

Because only someone with less intelligence than a retarded doorknob would try to claim otherwise.

 

[DiamondDave]

The continuation under false pretenses.

Even 1 violation of the cease fire justified continuation of action... there were NUMEROUS violations along the way.... sorry Charlie... whether you want to focus only on partially faulty intel on WoMD is your choice... but there were validated violations continually over the years

Continuation of action wasn't justified because action in the first place wasn't justified. Nor was destroying their sewage system or imposing sanctions that killed innocent civilians and children.

Yes... it was legally justified... it was morally justified... and there are no convictions nor charges nor anything else except for idiotic statements by conspiracy theorists and wingers that says otherwise... and to keep with that bullshit assertions insults me and every other vet during that time who did everything they could in that effort

 

[DiamondDave]

The continuation under false pretenses.

Even 1 violation of the cease fire justified continuation of action... there were NUMEROUS violations along the way.... sorry Charlie... whether you want to focus only on partially faulty intel on WoMD is your choice... but there were validated violations continually over the years

Not according to the UN.

There was no Iraq war, only the Iraq invasion and the Iraq invasion was illegal under international law.

The UN is not some end-all-be-all world government.. was never meant to be.. and hopefully never will be..

Please show any charges or convictions that prove your assertion of illegal activity... until then... shut the fuck up... and please... no blogs, winger arguments, etc... legal documents only

 

[DiamondDave]

Which would have been more than a decade before the Iraq war. Not to mention our ambassador basically giving Saddam the green light on that one.

Uhh... what happened under GWB was the continuation of hostilities as a result of violations of the terms of cease fire... it was the same conflict... unfortunately the pussy UN and our pussy leadership at the time, did not allow us to finish the job properly the first time around, else the whole second part of the conflict would not have been needed

bullshit-there was zero need to go into iraq a second time, and all it did was make things geometrically worse.

have a nice day

Normally agree with you bro... but violations to terms of cease-fire say otherwise... 1 violation was enough... and there were numerous

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Even 1 violation of the cease fire justified continuation of action... there were NUMEROUS violations along the way.... sorry Charlie... whether you want to focus only on partially faulty intel on WoMD is your choice... but there were validated violations continually over the years

Continuation of action wasn't justified because action in the first place wasn't justified. Nor was destroying their sewage system or imposing sanctions that killed innocent civilians and children.

Yes... it was legally justified... it was morally justified... and there are no convictions nor charges nor anything else except for idiotic statements by conspiracy theorists and wingers that says otherwise... and to keep with that bullshit assertions insults me and every other vet during that time who did everything they could in that effort

Actually it doesn't, but if you want to be offended then you can feel free. It's never morally justified to kill innocent civilians. It's called murder.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Continuation of action wasn't justified because action in the first place wasn't justified. Nor was destroying their sewage system or imposing sanctions that killed innocent civilians and children.

Yes... it was legally justified... it was morally justified... and there are no convictions nor charges nor anything else except for idiotic statements by conspiracy theorists and wingers that says otherwise... and to keep with that bullshit assertions insults me and every other vet during that time who did everything they could in that effort

Actually it doesn't, but if you want to be offended then you can feel free. It's never morally justified to kill innocent civilians. It's called murder.

He is offended because of idiotic statements like the one you just made. Im going to assume you werent there and have no fucking clue what your talking about other than what youve been spoon fed. Its war, civillians die, deal with it. We have had civillian deaths to so dont act like you got some moral high ground to stand on. Not that it would matter. I dont see you crting about civillian deaths in Obamas wars.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yes... it was legally justified... it was morally justified... and there are no convictions nor charges nor anything else except for idiotic statements by conspiracy theorists and wingers that says otherwise... and to keep with that bullshit assertions insults me and every other vet during that time who did everything they could in that effort

Actually it doesn't, but if you want to be offended then you can feel free. It's never morally justified to kill innocent civilians. It's called murder.

He is offended because of idiotic statements like the one you just made. Im going to assume you werent there and have no fucking clue what your talking about other than what youve been spoon fed. Its war, civillians die, deal with it. We have had civillian deaths to so dont act like you got some moral high ground to stand on. Not that it would matter. I dont see you crting about civillian deaths in Obamas wars.

You don't, huh?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/military/181795-a-lesson-that-may-not-be-lost-on-others.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/military/179444-will-obama-drag-us-into-another-war.html

http://www.usmessageboard.com/politics/133145-why-libertarians-oppose-war.html

And when civilians are murdered the war loses any and all justification it may have had, which in the case of the Gulf War and Iraq War was none to begin with.

 

[del]

Uhh... what happened under GWB was the continuation of hostilities as a result of violations of the terms of cease fire... it was the same conflict... unfortunately the pussy UN and our pussy leadership at the time, did not allow us to finish the job properly the first time around, else the whole second part of the conflict would not have been needed

bullshit-there was zero need to go into iraq a second time, and all it did was make things geometrically worse.

have a nice day

Normally agree with you bro... but violations to terms of cease-fire say otherwise... 1 violation was enough... and there were numerous

no offense, but that's a load of shit, imo. we'll just disagree