Should Saddam go on Trial

[buggerzion]

Of course many would say. Please remember, his country was invaded on the pretext it had WMDs. These allegations have been proven false or at least there is no evidence of their existence.

Consider in Britain, at least one member of Blair's staff has resigned over misleading info re WMD to entice the British Gov't to go to war.

Consider the British intelligence services said they warned against the existence of WMDs

Consider and enquiry was called, and as far as I know is still under way.

All this leads me to believe Saddam has done nothing wrong and the unfortunate violent history of this man in other matters is a side issue.

Perhaps Bush , Blair and others should be in the dock!

 

[jimnyc]

Please tell me you're joking.

Of course many would say. Please remember, his country was invaded on the pretext it had WMDs. These allegations have been proven false or at least there is no evidence of their existence.

What has been proven false?

All this leads me to believe Saddam has done nothing wrong and the unfortunate violent history of this man in other matters is a side issue.

Sure, hundreds of thousands of people dead and their bllod is on his hands. He should receive sainthood!

 

[janeeng]

Maybe we should give him a medal!!! for all his good killings, torture, etc... YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING!!!!!!!

 

[eric]

What the hell does this have to do with war crimes !

Get your head out of the sand, man !

 

[Isaac Brock]

WMD aside (which I certainly understand where you are coming from), Saddam has human rights violations out of the wazoo!

He should be tried by his own people for his crimes in his country.

 

[NightTrain]

All this leads me to believe Saddam has done nothing wrong and the unfortunate violent history of this man in other matters is a side issue.

Your lack of compassion for fellow human beings is appalling.

Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, have been murdered and buried in mass graves.

A side issue??

He will meet a violent and public end at the hands of the Iraqis he has terrorized for decades.

 

[jimnyc]

For some reason, rather than posting his reply here - buggerzion decided to PM me his reply.

Here it is:

"No, I'm not joking.

The invasion was over WMDs never found and official enquiries in Britain reveal that WMDs were a hoax. Maybe they'll plant some now.

It is feasible the allied leadership could go on trial for bombing what was essentially a defenceless city.

Saddam's crimes against his own people are a matter for the Iraqis.


bugerzion"

 

[jon_forward]

christ almighty!!!! is this guy for real! either the hot sun of the outback has fried his noogin or theres something besides fosters in the can he is drinking from. I wonder what he thinks of hitler?

 

[buggerzion]

But you see, there were no WMDs, and that's what the invasion was about, and the WMDs have proven to be a falsehood. Te invasion was based on lies and it was not popular in Britain and Australia, or Italy.

Tony Blair and John Howard are known zionist lackeys and have no credibilty.

Why did we invade Iraq?


Buggerzion

 

[buggerzion]

Re Jon_forward's comment
I believe the word is " noggin ". I do not live in the interior, or the " outback " as you call it!. I do not drink a cheap and nasty beer like Foster's.

To Night train

I have plenty of care for my fellow human being, like those 500,000 that died due to sanctions over non existant WMDs

For the allied leaders to cal Saddam a murder is like "the pot calling the kettle black "

I am not being emotional here. I am trying to be like the policeman or the judge, remaining neutral and not letting emotians cloud my thoughts

 

[buggerzion]

Isaak Brock seems to understand what I am trying to say. While Saddam should go on trial for offences against his own people, we should not have assisted in any way!



buggerzion

 

[NightTrain]

Non-Existent WMDs? Tell me you don't really believe that.

Do you really doubt that Saddam posessed and used WMDs? I would be more than happy to educate you on your hero Saddam's past dealings with WMDs.

Better yet, it would be in your best interests to research it for yourself. There are countless accounts of it available on the net for free.

I have plenty of care for my fellow human being, like those 500,000 that died due to sanctions over non existant WMDs

Do you know why the sanctions were imposed by the UNSC in the first place? Oooops, gets right back to that WMD issue.

500,000 Iraqi deaths directly due to the sanctions? Really?

 

[jon_forward]

the fact is that President Bush stated the need for a regime change. how many reasons do we have to put in front of you? how about the gasing of his own people, the outright murder of untold thousands of innocent iraqis, the support of terrorism, a danger to mankind and small animals.living in palaces while the vast majority of his 'subjects' lived in slums. from what the world leaders are saying about the butcher of bagdad you are in a very small group that seem to disagree. 99.999% agree that Iraq without saddam is better. where does that leave you? the .001% not ageeing would be terrorist. isaak did not state that we should not have assisted in any way. that would be your words, read the post! even though you dont like it the world is a better and safer place today and into the future without saddam and co running free to kill as they see fit to.

 

[buggerzion]

The sanctions were the U.S/U.K not the U.N and if it was the U.N it doesn't make it right.

Yes, there were 500,00 killed by the sanctions. As usual the U.S media is engaging in self censorship.

Blair had the largest demonstrations in recent history against the war.

Britain accepts there are no WMDs. Over 100 Britsh Labour MPs challenged Blair over the existence of WMDs. He nearly lost his job.

As I type the BBC world service states these politicians may forgive Blair if WMDs are found ( planted ).

There is no evidence of WMDs.


buggerzion

 

[NightTrain]

The sanctions were the U.S/U.K not the U.N and if it was the U.N it doesn't make it right.

The sanctions imposed were indeed via the United Nations.

I think you may be confused with the No-Fly Zones imposed in addition to the U.N. sanctions by the USA and UK. They were in response to Saddam using warplanes to kill thousands of Kurds after Desert Storm.

Yes, there were 500,00 killed by the sanctions. As usual the U.S media is engaging in self censorship.

Excellent, I know you have proof of your claims. Let's see it.

Blair had the largest demonstrations in recent history against the war.

Fortunately, burned out hippies recruiting clueless college kids doesn't shape foriegn policy in the USA, UK, Australia & Spain.

And frankly, it's pretty amusing because that really enrages 'em.

No evidence of WMDs? Very well, stay tuned.

 

[Dan]

This is a joke, right? Jim, are you doing a parody of a liberal?

I vote this...

All this leads me to believe Saddam has done nothing wrong and the unfortunate violent history of this man in other matters is a side issue.

As the most hilarious thing ever posted on this board.

But, you do have a point, I mean look at Hitler: it's so sad the way he's still considered a horrible man just because of his unfortunate violent history. I mean, it's not like he was turning on the ovens himself!!!

Again, bugger, thanks so much, I haven't laughed like this in weeks!

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by buggerzion
Isaak Brock seems to understand what I am trying to say. While Saddam should go on trial for offences against his own people, we should not have assisted in any way!



buggerzion

Whoh, whoh. While I don't believe Iraq at the time of invasion had WMD's (and the truth I suppose will be found in hindsight rather than debated at this moment, which I have stated on several occaisions), that doesn't mean I agree with what you said. I don't believe in Zionist conspiracy anymore than I believe that all muslims are evil people or that the US is the Great Satan incarnate. My neighbours are jewish and are great hospitable people. I won't take anti-semitic rubbish.

My point of view is that the casius belli (ie. reason for war) against Iraq was fundamentally flawed. I don't believe WMD's were in place after the gulf war, let alone that they were an immediate threat to world security. Like I've said in several other threads, I would have been infinitely more supportive of the US in its war if it did it in accordance with the UN, international or hell, if they just said they wanted to take out Saddam because he's a butcher to its people. It's the unilateralism and the precedent that it starts that really gets to me. Heck if the US went after NK I'd be like, damn right you should!

That being said. The casius belli is debatable. What I won't respect in debate is racist slants on everything on any side of the argument. I think most people on this board would agree that in that sense I am 100% consistent.

 

[eric]

I think most people on this board would agree that in that sense I am 100% consistent.

Absolutely !

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
Whoh, whoh. While I don't believe Iraq at the time of invasion had WMD's (and the truth I suppose will be found in hindsight rather than debated at this moment, which I have stated on several occaisions), that doesn't mean I agree with what you said. I don't believe in Zionist conspiracy anymore than I believe that all muslims are evil people or that the US is the Great Satan incarnate. My neighbours are jewish and are great hospitable people. I won't take anti-semitic rubbish.

My point of view is that the casius belli (ie. reason for war) against Iraq was fundamentally flawed. I don't believe WMD's were in place after the gulf war, let alone that they were an immediate threat to world security. Like I've said in several other threads, I would have been infinitely more supportive of the US in its war if it did it in accordance with the UN, international or hell, if they just said they wanted to take out Saddam because he's a butcher to its people. It's the unilateralism and the precedent that it starts that really gets to me. Heck if the US went after NK I'd be like, damn right you should!

That being said. The casius belli is debatable. What I won't respect in debate is racist slants on everything on any side of the argument. I think most people on this board would agree that in that sense I am 100% consistent.

Saddam should go to trial at the hands of his people. Regardless of what the US did or didn't do, it is his people who need to lead their country and figure out a way from the dark. This would be an important symbolic and effective step towards that end.

Who the heck is NK????

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by Moi
Saddam should go to trial at the hands of his people. Regardless of what the US did or didn't do, it is his people who need to lead their country and figure out a way from the dark. This would be an important symbolic and effective step towards that end.

Who the heck is NK????

My apologies, my post was in reference to buggerzion. I completely agree he should go to trial by his own people 100%, no doubt, no caveat.

NK, North Korea.