OT: Saddam Hussein Arrested

[Slynky]

Originally posted by Cipher7071:
In any case, trying him in the U.S. would be a big mistake all around.

Not that the world is waiting on what I have to say, but I agree.

[Cyrien]

My prediction is that the people of Iraq will get him. Several members of their provisional government have stated they want him. People are chanting for him in the streets, Tony Blair has stated that is what he would prefer. Several other Arab nations have stated that with the addition that the subsequent execution should be public. And the US is undecided on where he should be put on trial and only know that he should.

[Cyrien]

Originally posted by Slynky:
Well, one thing is for sure (I think):

The Bush administration is enjoying the lack of attention there has been on the push for proof of WMD. I still mention it to my wife (a devout Bush supporter), though. I still remember all the aerial photographs before the "action" started with arrows pointing to places that housed the WMD. And when they got there, nothing. And nothing since. And the chief inspector in the country, from Germany, saying they had never found anything.

I think the US wanted to flex its muscle (given certain events) and I don't disagree that Iraq was a country gone awry (sp?). But, even in the US, it's illegal for a guy to go beat up another guy even if he is sure this guy will do some bad some day.

But is it illegal to go and remove from a position to do so someone who has exibited repeatedly in the past the desire, and ability to do some bad to all his neighbors. Just putting the analogy in a more proper context.

[Slynky]

Well, to put the analagy in proper context, I offer this:

A guy can say in front of witnesses that he is going to kill his wife. She can even complain to the police. But they can't arrest him, even though he certainly has the ability to beat her to death. An action has to be done before arrests can be made.

[Cyrien]

I would offer that he has already beaten several wives to death in the past.

[Thermodyne]

Originally posted by General Woundwort:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karibu:
Go and Look. I think this will buy G.W. Bush another season as president.

Cheap at the price. My big question is, where do we try him, in Iraq (my preference) or back home? Or give him a few months in Club Gitmo to soften him up first?

Originally posted by Thermodyne:
One SOB down and one bigger SOB to go!

Bigger SOB = UBL?

---

Yep

[CNCRaymond]

Could someone please explain to me why they think what GWB did was bad? I mean as I see it, he ended a system of government that was both corrupt and a threat to continued world security.

We all know that Saddam has sought after, and did have at one point, weapons of mass destruction.

If we would have left him alone, and not gone in when we did, what do you think would have eventually happened?

Do you think Saddam would have continued to seek after these types of weapons? Continue his reign of evil over the Iraqis people? Continued to support terrorist Groups and funding of terrorist activities?

If Saddam did get his hands on a WMD, do you think he would have used it himself, or either sell it or given it to a group that would have used it?

We all can agree that Saddam had, abused his powers as a leader of his country to both kill innocent people, and line his own pockets with gold. He did not want wealth per say, what he wanted was power.

We know that Saddam attempted to have GB senior killed. Could this have been motivation for GWB to go in?

What I know is that nearly everyone felt that Saddam had to go. He was an evil man, a man who sought after, and more than likely would have gotten, a weapon of mass destruction.

If Saddam had gotten his hands on a nuke, I have no doubts that he would have sold it or given it to a terrorist group who would have used it against either Israel or the another target.

I do not think that not finding weapons of mass destruction is a bad thing. I think it is a horrifying thing. If Saddam did have them, where are they now? If he did not have them, then did he destroy the ones he did have or did he just sell them off?

The end result is: Saddam is no longer in power, a source of funding and support for terrorism has been severely curtailed, and a source for weapons of mass destruction has been removed. The Iraqis people have their freedom, albeit a bit confused and chaotic at the moment, but they do have it. Saddam is now in custody and will stand trial for his crimes.

I think that GWB did what needed to be done in order to make a better place for us all to live. I think he saved a people from a tyrant ruler and his thugs. I do not believe that GWB lied to the world, I believe he honestly felt that what he was saying was true and accurate. Never the less, world opinion on this subject will always be that he lied. One thing to keep in mind though, these are the same people who protested the war in the first place, who wanted to keep Saddam in power. They wanted Saddam�s rule to continue, and the suffering of the Iraqis people to continue unabated.

These are also the same people who stood by and let millions die in the Yugoslavian civil wars. I have to be honest with you all, I really sincerely question the reasoning of these kind of people.

But they have their reasons, their information, and way of life. I have mine, and I am not above saying that I don�t know all the facts, and that truth is something that a Government seldom tells its people regardless of Government it is.

We should never stand idle when human rights are being violated, and people are being appressed. There is no such thing as an acceptable tolerance to human suffering. Going into Iraq and taking out Saddam was something that should have been dealt with back in 91. But politics being politics, and the worlds opinion mattering, he was left alone, as were the Taliban. Look where that philosophy has taken us all.

In my humble opinion, we as a whole, all of us, not just the USA, but all nations, should stand together and say enough is enough. No excuses, no more terrorism or violation of human rights. If you support terrorism, or violate the sanctity of humanity, then you will be dealt with.

If not for the USA, France, Great Britain, and god know how many other countries would have been forced to endure the horror that was brought to them by Adolf Hitler. I really see no difference here. Saddam, if left alone, would have continued his quest for a nuclear weapon and eventfully would have obtained one. And then the world would have changed.

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by Slynky:
Well, to put the analagy in proper context, I offer this:

A guy can say in front of witnesses that he is going to kill his wife. She can even complain to the police. But they can't arrest him, even though he certainly has the ability to beat her to death. An action has to be done before arrests can be made.

The anaolgy is NOT correct. To use your terms and have the analogy correct you would say Sadaam was convicted of beating his wife, not simply suspected or threatening to do so. He was put on probation and the terms of his probation were that he attend regular counseling (weapons inspections) to make sure he does not go back to beating her. Whether or not he is actually beating her (has weapons of mass destruction) is important to know, but the simple fact that he is skipping the counseling (interfered with the inspectors) is a violation of the terms of his probation and enough to get his butt put in jail.

Geoschmo

[Slynky]

Originally posted by Cyrien:
I would offer that he has already beaten several wives to death in the past.

I'm talking about international crimes and analagies. If the US were appointed the international police and were allowed to invade countries based on the civil crimes done by their leaders, we'd have to be just about everywhere.

My analagy was: Just as one doesn't have the right to beat up on a guy because he might (or even probably) will do something bad in the future, the US can't go beating up on countries just because they might do something bad in the future. There has to have been an offense already committed.

[Cyrien]

Apparantly after some questioning about what he did he was belligerent and viewed himself as a kind but stern leader and called those he killed nothing but thieves.

If such reports are accurate it seems that there will be little difficulty in proving he is in fact Saddam.