What will they do with him?
Prison? The chair? Fine?:D

Confirmed by Bremmer and Blair.

http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/bushcall.jpg

They should make Saddam listen to Britney Spears 24 hours a day.

But that would be a cruel and unusual punishment

That made for one of the best 4:20's I've had in ages.

CNN's a spectacle, of course.

:m:

damn , we need some new us-jokes here in europe now :D

We still have Ossama (at least until september...) ;)

Anyway, why was Saddam so quiet/peacefull on TV ? Drugs... or does he know that he will be out soon ? (What a big problem it would be for Bush if he would escape !)

As I'm not a US* soldier* in Iraq* that news is a good one IMO.
(* : Thanks :D)

Santa came early this year for Bush

Well his capture went off with a bang:rolleyes:... hiding in a little hole in the ground. For some reason I pictured him going the same way as his sons.

I'd just like to know where he would face trial. In Iraq or would the US want him tried on US soil.... military tribunal maybe? Could he be sent off to Guantanamo Bay? Time will tell I guess. He really should face trial in Iraq. Or even in the ICC (along with Milosovic). And I wonder if Iraq will reinstate the death penalty since this turn of events. I doubt the Iraqi people would be too happy if he were not tried in Iraq but in the US.



:eek:

Maybe its Richard Perle dressed up like Saddam

http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/bushroom.jpg

Excellent! Surprising! I never expected the psychology of a man like Saddam would allow for being captured alive by his nemesis. Someone had very good intel to catch him napping and unprotected.

i guess seeing saddam on cnn like an animal is such a great moment for the amerikan public .....

what happened to mr taylor ? he´s a criminal too ! why is HE allowed to leave his country , but not saddam ? is there any personal grudge against saddam ? ;)

the one criminal gets asylum , the other criminal gets punished ....... hmmm , i can smell HYPOCRITES

Hopefully they got him, but ain't convinient it came when Bush was looking like shiet?. No weapons of mass destruction, were ever found and have not been found in Irag, that was the reason for going there.

No connection of 9-11 to Saddam, no aliance with Osama, the whole fiasco was perpertrated with lies and deciet.

So they finally captured the sob, that a few years earlier we helped get into power. Big deal!!

Godless.

Very true Godless. No WMD's, but then the reason for invading became to liberate Iraq from Saddam the tyrant. Now I guess the Iraqis are asking themselves who will liberate them from the US.

That's why I am wondering where Saddam will face trial. If it is against crimes against his own people, surely the US won't try and make him stand trial in the US, but frankly it wouldn't surprise me if they did:rolleyes:.

While I watched the news conference where it was confirmed that it was him, my teeth started grinding when Brenner said in his whiny and nasally voice about how for decades Saddam had tortured and killed Iraqi's and how for decades he had terrorised Iraq. What Brenner failed to say was that for at least one of those decades the US and Co had armed Saddam to help him kill and torture and terrorise the Iraqi people. But I guess that would have brought down the mood of the capture:mad:.



:eek:

Originally posted by sweet Pentax
i guess seeing saddam on cnn like an animal is such a great moment for the amerikan public .....
It provided some amusement here too - one sky news reporter made the serious mistake of pointing out that showing his medical examination tapes was as much against the geneva convention as was the interrogation of US POWs during the invasion - and he was promptly set upon by the other Sky reporters. I honestly thought he was going to be asked to leave the set :D

Good Job, America- Let's draw down and go home now. This is our fleeting best moment for "peace with honor", and Iraq's best moment to start over again on their own chosen destiny.

Caught cowering in a spiderhole. So much for going out in a blaze of glory, as fearless leader once declared.

Originally posted by hypewaders
Good Job, America- Let's draw down and go home now. This is our fleeting best moment for "peace with honor", and Iraq's best moment to start over again on their own chosen destiny.

HEH... but there's oil in them there hills... peace and honour cannot compare when cheap gasoline is available to the American public (and their allies) and Bush sitting in the Whitehouse. He's probably rubbing his hands together with glee now, thinking "I won't need daddy to put me back in here this time... the public might actually buy it and let me come back for another term"...


:eek:

Now the debriefing can begin with Saddam! The all important question remains, though, does Saddam wear briefs? We will have to wait and see.

Iraqi reports were going nuts about it in the news conference, parties in Baghdad.

Way to go team!!!!! Whoot, Whoot, Whoot, Huzzah, Huzzah, Huzzah!!!

I hope this guy will sing like the rest of the old regime leadership.

And for you naysayers, get over it, it is not about oil and never was.

Originally posted by truth
And for you naysayers, get over it, it is not about oil and never was.
Darn right! It was all about Weapons of Mass Destruction! So bring on the interrogation - I want to hear where Saddam put them!
:rolleyes:

it´s disgusting ! i just watched 5 minutes cnn - and guess what , i´m sick of seeing saddams mouth and his hole again and again :bugeye:

oh amerika , enjoy those short moments of "victory"

Originally posted by sweet Pentax
it´s disgusting ! i just watched 5 minutes cnn - and guess what , i´m sick of seeing saddams mouth again and again :bugeye:

oh amerika , enjoy those short moments of "victory"

LOL they're probably checking his fillings for WMD's:p



:eek:

What is the matter with you people? Are you mental? You all must be the "glass is half empty types". Oh well, bad mouth all you want, does not change the fact that you are wrong, were wrong, and will always be wrong. What kind of self-loathing must you have to hate the success of others, the demise of tyranny? What kind of evil rages in your hearts? You have my pity.

Labor to keep alive in your breast that little spark of celestial fire called conscience.
George Washington

Apparently, many of you have issues here.

This forum is full of self-loathing, miserable people who abhor the successful and powerful and praise the european "do-nothing" attitude toward diplomacy. What scares people the most about George W Bush is that he actually takes action, even in the face of dissent. He knows he is right and he wont be deterred by hand-wringing, teeth-grinding do-nothing types that praise the impotent debate society that is the U.N.

It is good that Saddam has been captured. For all of the Iraqi's who suffered under his regime, at least we have done one thing right.

But it really changes virtually nothing. Iraq's slide into civil war and chaos will continue. And our troops will continue to die for no good reason.

We can hope that the current administration will use this as a pretense to declare victory and leave. That would be welcomed by thousands of our troops.

As far as Bush "knows he is right".... "The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure, and the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell

So you know the collective mind of our troops? Incredible. From others I have heard from, family members, that the troops are proud of what they are doing. Of course the media is going to put on the disgruntled, they hope to sell more that way. So many are so fond of saying look for the money, look at the media and what they sell.

You are correct 15. The amount of Schadenfreude on this board is incredible. The job is not yet done, we most continue the mission of mercy to bring light. Kind of wonder what they will say when more WMD are found. I guess missiles with ranges greater than that allowed, botulism, material for bomb creation, documentation, etc. do not count.

More WMD's? They haven't found ANY WMD's. Even Bush came out and admitted that, when are you going to do the same?

The job is not yet done, we most continue the mission of mercy to bring light.

Oh my. "Mission of mercy to bring bright light"? You're kidding right? It was more a mission to bring more oil and mercy was second to that. No one is complaining that Saddam is gone, but what upsets most is the reason behind US and it's coalition of the willing attacking Iraq. The US and the world community did NOTHING when Saddam massacred hundreds of thousands of his people... in fact, the US was still selling Saddam arms while these atrocities were occuring. And now you're saying "mission of mercy to bring bright light"? Don't you think that's a bit rich?

The US has always been selective in who it helps in so called missions of mercy. It's a shame that Rwanda for example had no oil like Iraq did, otherwise I'm sure the US would have rushed to the aid of the people being massacred there as well. But the US did nothing, even though the people on the ground in Rwanda were begging for help to stop the killing of 800,000 people.



:eek:

You just made my point with regards to Rwanda.

The U.S. did nothing. What did the U.N. do?

What kind of self-loathing must you have to hate the success of others, the demise of tyranny?

truth , i am just saying that this is a lousy success
btw , of course he was a tyrant ; of course he should go to hell ..... but that shouldn´t have been your ( amerikas ) decision !!!
i saw some guys on tv today , flag waving patriots - they celebrated as if saddam had done anything to them :bugeye:

what has saddam done to YOU , truth ? i bet nothing !
so why are you so happy about his capture ???
ummm ..... yeah sure .... you are truly a friend of mankind , yep ?:rolleyes:

15ofthe19/truth
why do you think people are self-loathing for wanting higher standards.

its all good and dandy that Saddam has been captured but what will it help, has the Iraqie got more water/power or jobs, will the resistance stop a flare up, we have yet to see.


truth
You have my pity.
and you mine, simple minded and easy to controled, drone.

This war should have been about getting rit of Saddam, but insted it been about getting the biggest business deals and oile, while spending huge amount of bombs and testing all the new toys.

IMO if he is judged in a international coute for using cemical weapons they should also punish the men behind the puppet.

Originally posted by 15ofthe19
You just made my point with regards to Rwanda.

The U.S. did nothing. What did the U.N. do?

I think this (http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2001/09/power.htm) might answer your question. The UN were trying to get a bigger contingent force together to send to Rwanda, and the US blocked them every step of the way.
In March of 1998, on a visit to Rwanda, President Clinton issued what would later be known as the "Clinton apology," which was actually a carefully hedged acknowledgment. He spoke to the crowd assembled on the tarmac at Kigali Airport: "We come here today partly in recognition of the fact that we in the United States and the world community did not do as much as we could have and should have done to try to limit what occurred" in Rwanda.

This implied that the United States had done a good deal but not quite enough. In reality the United States did much more than fail to send troops. It led a successful effort to remove most of the UN peacekeepers who were already in Rwanda. It aggressively worked to block the subsequent authorization of UN reinforcements. It refused to use its technology to jam radio broadcasts that were a crucial instrument in the coordination and perpetuation of the genocide. And even as, on average, 8,000 Rwandans were being butchered each day, U.S. officials shunned the term "genocide," for fear of being obliged to act. The United States in fact did virtually nothing "to try to limit what occurred." Indeed, staying out of Rwanda was an explicit U.S. policy objective.




:eek:

The important thing to remember is that whenever bad things happen in the world it's the sole responsibility of the U.S. to take action. That's what you're saying, right?

Face it Bells, the U.N. is a failed organization.

If the U.N. are ineffective, then the answer is to fix the U.N.
Not to decide on unilateral action to do what we (the U.S., or more accurately, the present U.S. administration) thinks is right.

Originally posted by 15ofthe19
The important thing to remember is that whenever bad things happen in the world it's the sole responsibility of the U.S. to take action. That's what you're saying, right?

Face it Bells, the U.N. is a failed organization.

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that the world community has a habit of following the lead of the US in these situations. And this time with Iraq, most declined to follow. The UN refused to follow, yet the US still went ahead along with its allies and attacked Iraq anyway, on the false pretence that Saddam had a cache of WMD's. When these weren't found they came out and said but the main reason now is to free the Iraqi's from a tyrant and to save them. The whole thing reeked of hypocrisy. If you read the Charter for the UN you would see what it was about. There have been so many occasions where the US (who would block UN involvement) and the world community has failed to act in situations of extreme human rights abuses and genocide, and now for the coalition of the willing, led by Bush, to come out and say well we didn't find WMD's so we're saving you from him instead because of what he's done to the Iraqi people, it is a slap in the face of all the other people who have suffered in other countries (who begged for help) and also a slap in the face for the people in Iraq. In Iraq alone the whole thing was ridiculous to the extreme.

The US went on and on about how Saddam massacred his people and the weapons he had, yet the US seemed to have a blind spot that it helped arm Saddam in the first place. That hypocrisy is pathetic. Why didn't the US go into Iraq when Saddam used chemical weapons against his own people? They did nothing. Why didn't the US and the world community lift sanctions against the suffering people of Iraq? The UN were asking that the sanctions be lifted but the US refused and blocked it. The UN isn't failing. The problem with the UN is that the US has given itself too much power in the UN. What it did in the Rwanda crisis proved that and Iraq has only further reiterated it.


:eek:

Originally posted by hypewaders
Excellent! Surprising! I never expected the psychology of a man like Saddam would allow for being captured alive by his nemesis. Someone had very good intel to catch him napping and unprotected. My sentiments exactly.

No WMD'z stashed under Saddam's pillow: the U.N. was right!
I guess it really isn't that flawed after all.

Other thought: why are people comparing Saddam to Noreiga?

Is it because they were both dictators, or because they were both dictators placed to power by and then eliminated by the U.S.?

Prisme

The UN were trying to get a bigger contingent force together to send to Rwanda, and the US blocked them every step of the way.

You blame the US but yet don't blame the UN for failing to include the word 'genocide' in its early resolutions, which would have legally required it to take action, nor do you condemn France, which was also blamed in the report by Canadian Stephen Lewis for aiding the genocidaires, the Hutu extremists whom the French allowed to escaped Tutsi forces by crossing over into eastern Zaire. Lewis also leveled blame at the Vatican and Anglican Church. Clinton and the Anglicans admitted to their mistakes, while the Vatican and French have refused to do so.

My wish for years has been to see the U.S. pull out of the U.N. We don't need the U.N. The majority of the delegates to the UN take their time on the floor to spew their hatred of Israel and the US anyway, so if this is one more step toward the U.S. extracating itself from that useless organization, I applaud it.

I think the U.N. will be a much more efficient organization without the U.S. as their punching bag.

Originally posted by Spyke
You blame the US but yet don't blame the UN for failing to include the word 'genocide' in its early resolutions, which would have legally required it to take action, nor do you condemn France, which was also blamed in the report by Canadian Stephen Lewis for aiding the genocidaires, the Hutu extremists whom the French allowed to escaped Tutsi forces by crossing over into eastern Zaire. Lewis also leveled blame at the Vatican and Anglican Church. Clinton and the Anglicans admitted to their mistakes, while the Vatican and French have refused to do so.

No, all were to blame for what happened in Rwanda, or more to the point, the lack of action that occured in Rwanda. The US was but one party to the shocking inaction. But they like the French were major parties to the inaction to the genocide. You are correct, the UN should have included the word "genocide" in its resolutions regarding Rwanda and that failure will haunt us forever.

As for the US, the future will judge Bush for what's happened in Iraq and for his reasons for going to war. His reasons for attacking Iraq are as hypocritical as the inaction of the world community in the situation in Rwanda.


:eek:

Is the Bush administratoin going to call catching Saddam "progress in Iraq?". Like all you guys said before, catching Saddam was not the reason to go into Iraq. Why do I have the feeling that the goverment will somehow use this event to combat the growing skepticism of having our military in Iraq.

The headlines in the news won't being saying "20 more US soldiers dead in helicopter crash" or "Iraq war turning Vietnam-like," they'll be giving mundane updates about what's happening to Saddam Hussein.

It was great to see the Whitehouse making a huge deal about being cheated by Cheney's ex-company...then 'all of a sudden' the army finds Saddam. The headlines were changed from death in Iraq to the controversy over Cheney's company and then to Saddam's capture. The Army knew they were getting close to Saddam with the information they got from captured Iraqi officials, so the Whitehouse sent out a big, controversial news story to hide the 'bad things' happening in Iraq. With Saddam captured...any US deaths in Iraq will just be a 2 second tiny headline scrolling across the bottom of the TV screen.

then 'all of a sudden' the army finds Saddam. The headlines were changed from death in Iraq to the controversy over Cheney's company and then to Saddam's capture. The Army knew they were getting close to Saddam with the information they got from captured Iraqi officials, so the Whitehouse sent out a big, controversial news story to hide the 'bad things' happening in Iraq. With Saddam captured...any US deaths in Iraq will just be a 2 second tiny headline scrolling across the bottom of the TV screen.

So you're saying the army 'sat on' Saddam, waiting for the right political moment to announce his capture?:bugeye:

http://www.americanpolitics.com/MOPAULcaptured300.jpg

Originally posted by Spyke
So you're saying the army 'sat on' Saddam, waiting for the right political moment to announce his capture?:bugeye:
No, just that the Whitehouse was "sitting on" this Haliburton scandal, and when they found out the Army was close to catching Saddam, they released the Haliburton news.

I think Saddam's capture was genuine, but the releasing of the Haliburton news story was planned.

....stuck in a hole for 8 months, raggedy, un kempt, long beard.....yet still manages to dye his hair.....

Hmmmmm....

:bugeye:

you people amaze me with your conspiracy theories...

no, it's not a double, it's not a genetically engineered cloan, it's not a Mexican illegal refugee with face alterations..... it's Tom Hanks!


it's good news for the world, for the iraqis and the US.
US just took a giant step closer to stabalizing Iraq, and that's good news for everyone (except those who wish for the US to fail, as the majority of the ppl on this board do)

Saddam, the great leader.. did not fire a shot, did not kill himself, did not go out with "a big bang" taking as many infidel occupiers with him as possible. what a pathetic excuse for a monkey, that guy........

It will be interesting to see if the attacks stop now that Saddam has been captured. I'm inclined to think they won't since, as he was hiding in a hole, its unlikely he was coordinating them, but it may shorten their duration as there will no longer be the idea of a hidden Saddam backing up the attackers.
Ultimately this may do more harm than good though, as people forget about the fact that this invasion/occupation was wrong and not in the best interest of those who don't have large shares in oil companies, and focus on the drama of Hussein's capture and trial. In doing this it will likely cement Bush's re-election and embolden him to attack more countries in the region.
The trial itself will be intersting too. I wonder if all the people(some of them members of the Bush administration) who were complicit in Saddam's worst crimes will be given immunity for testifying or if it will be strictly a show trial with no mention made of such things?

so i am supposed to celebrate? the reasons for going into iraq was bogus. why is saddm held responsible? what are his crimes? was it 9/11? wmd?
show me the frikkin proof! innocent until proven guilty!!

Originally posted by spookz
so i am supposed to celebrate? the reasons for going into iraq was bogus. why is saddm held responsible? what are his crimes? was it 9/11? wmd?
show me the frikkin proof! innocent until proven guilty!!

Well..for one thing its pretty well established that he used mustard gas against the kurds....but of course he was backed up by the US at the time, so I say any trial should be held in conjunction with trials for his foreign accomplices. No double standards.

i have no problem if he faces a int tribunal for hr violations

*plus your "accomplices" stuff. lets round up the whole bunch of them

Originally posted by Bells
Oh my. "Mission of mercy to bring bright light"? You're kidding right?

No, he's serious - it's just that he's confusing "arc light" with "bright light" :rolleyes:

Originally posted by 15ofthe19
You just made my point with regards to Rwanda.
The U.S. did nothing. What did the U.N. do?
And that statement proves you don't know enough to argue intelligently about this. More schooltime needed young man!

perhaps just drop him off in baghdad. i think the iraqis will beat him to death:D

Originally posted by 15ofthe19
The important thing to remember is that whenever bad things happen in the world it's the sole responsibility of the U.S. to take action. That's what you're saying, right?
Face it Bells, the U.N. is a failed organization.
Something to remember 15, is that the US were the ones who cast the veto vote in the UNSC which was what prevented the UN going in while the genocide was going on to stop the fighting. That was due to a specific policy decision by Clinton, as documented in presidential decision directive 25 which says "peace operations are not and cannot be the centerpiece of U.S. foreign policy. When our interests dictate, the U.S. must be willing and able to fight and win wars, unilaterally whenever necessary.".

As to the UN being a "failed organisation", you're simply wrong. The UN has a record the US can't even hold a candle to. There have been failures, to be sure - but the US usually has a very large part in tripping the UN up when they do fail:
Somalia : US pulled out forces and resources, leaving the UN hanging.
Rwanda : US vetoed any action after the genocide started, UN charter prevents preemptive strikes.
Bosnia : US initially only committed to a year's deployment then vetoed any further UN action to avoid coming under the ICC's jurisdiction
DRC : The country is *huge* and most of it looks like dante's worst psychotic nightmare. The UN's the only crowd deployed in there. I'll wait before declaring it a failure, though it doesn't look good - but when the US makes up 74% of the UN's budget debt, I know where I'll look first if it turns out that they don't have the resources they need.

he should of escaped on his reindeer.

You certainly know your stuff...NOT!

Are you on the U.N. payroll or something? This is getting ridiculous.

Why is it that you and your kind consistently miss the obvious?

How many Hutu's are U.S. citizens?

We didn't start the genocide in Rwanda, Bosnia or anywhere else for that matter, but yet the U.S. consistently receives the blame for not intervening?

I don't give a rats ass what happens in Rwanda. It's not my problem, it's Africa's problem.

Originally posted by 15ofthe19
My wish for years has been to see the U.S. pull out of the U.N. We don't need the U.N.
*hehe*
Yeah, that's going to happen. Korea showed what happens when you give up your spot on the UNSC. And since the US is not self-sufficent enough to become isolationist (hell, the amount of money you need to pay just to clear your foreign debt nearly broke the treasury earlier this year, and that's not even the total fiscal deficit), with the world's worst trade imbalance outside ethopia, I don't think anyone's stupid enough to think the US would ever withdraw from the UN. They're happy enough to just sit there, strangling the UN and preventing them from actually making the world a bit better.

Originally posted by 15ofthe19
You certainly know your stuff...NOT!
Indeed? You say that recorded history is incorrect? Really?
My goodness. Tell me, where's your proof?

Why is it that you and your kind consistently miss the obvious?
*lol*
This from someone who thinks the US operates in an altruistic or even vaguely humanistic manner while Dubya leads from the rear? :D

How many Hutu's are U.S. citizens?
We didn't start the genocide in Rwanda, Bosnia or anywhere else for that matter, but yet the U.S. consistently receives the blame for not intervening?
No, the US consistently receives the blame for preventing anyone else from intervening.

I don't give a rats ass what happens in Rwanda. It's not my problem, it's Africa's problem.
Which is the offical policy of the US, as outlined in the presidential document above, isn't it? Well, fine then. Don't go and actually do some good - but by preventing others from stopping the violence, you took the side of those who committed genocide.

BTW, if Rwanda isn't your problem, what about Liberia? Where Irish and French troops are now cleaning up a mess the US has more responsibility for than any other nation? :rolleyes:

Now Saddam's supporters are out in force, the Palestinians. These guys would probably even bet on Wiley Coyote to actually catch the roadrunner.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=574&u=/nm/20031214/wl_nm/iraq_mideast_dc_1&printer=1

Courtesy of Bells:

.......(clinton's Apology)..... implied that the United States had done a good deal but not quite enough. In reality the United States did much more than fail to send troops. It led a successful effort to remove most of the UN peacekeepers who were already in Rwanda. It aggressively worked to block the subsequent authorization of UN reinforcements. It refused to use its technology to jam radio broadcasts that were a crucial instrument in the coordination and perpetuation of the genocide. And even as, on average, 8,000 Rwandans were being butchered each day, U.S. officials shunned the term "genocide," for fear of being obliged to act. The United States in fact did virtually nothing "to try to limit what occurred." Indeed, staying out of Rwanda was an explicit U.S. policy objective.


So true. We stood by and did nothing. Iraq had special interests with our name on it which is why sanctions were not being lifted, why we supplied his massacre on Shiites, why we turned a blind eye to tyranny, murder, and pig politics until Hussein turned west and hit on Kuwait- another oil mine.

What did Rwanada have? Ashy negros and a donkey.

Sparks said it, quoting from directive 25 "(blah blah)..... When our interests dictate, the U.S. must be willing and able to fight and win wars, unilaterally whenever necessary."

Sparks:
As to the UN being a "failed organisation", you're simply wrong.
Somalia : US pulled out forces and resources, leaving the UN hanging.
Rwanda : US vetoed any action after the genocide started, UN charter prevents preemptive strikes.
Bosnia : US initially only committed to a year's deployment then vetoed any further UN action to avoid coming under the ICC's jurisdiction
...........

You've just proved exactly what's wrong with it. Bells said it for you, the international 'community' has made a habit of letting the U.S. have its way. Calling it cooperation, union, or global alliance when there's one in the bunch always getting its way is the safest path to failure.

The
UN
Does
Not
Work

All they do is draw lines, bitch, whine, and scold when the U.S finally lets them.

And blaming Saddam is the cheapest lie I've ever heard. There are three things we are blaming him for.............and all three are bogus. Collective opinion.
Does that not tell you something?

Originally posted by gendanken
You've just proved exactly what's wrong with it. Bells said it for you, the international 'community' has made a habit of letting the U.S. have its way. Calling it cooperation, union, or global alliance when there's one in the bunch always getting its way is the safest path to failure.
That's not a case of the international community letting the US have it's way, it's a case of the international community following the UN's rules.

But following other people's rules isn't something the US has gained the maturity to do yet, it would seem.

Originally posted by EI_Sparks
That's not a case of the international community letting the US have it's way, it's a case of the international community following the UN's rules.

But following other people's rules isn't something the US has gained the maturity to do yet, it would seem.

That would be because if we followed everything the UN said, we would be screwed over. If we actually did what these little countries demanded, we would be stupid. I think it is bad enough that we fund the majority of the UN and its operations, and then have a country of a couple million with nothing to contribute or some dictorial regime or banana republic tell us what to do while we are paying the salaries of diplomats who want to fleece us.

When the rest of the world begins to contribute what the US has, then you can speak of rules.

Sparks:
That's not a case of the international community letting the US have it's way, it's a case of the international community following the UN's rules.


And the case of the boy president who waged war on a country despite UN disapproval.................is what?


Truth:
That would be because if we followed everything the UN said, we would be screwed over. If we actually did what these little countries demanded, we would be stupid
Yes and No.

If we actually listened, there would not be the nightmares of Rwanda to haunt nowadays.................not that we *have* to go in save the whole godammned world. Its not our responsiblity and neither is nation building- but that's besides the point.


I only find it amazing that a country as insignificant as Spain, say, has as much clout as Russia or the U.S does when it comes to deciding anything in the U.N.

So, who's getting the $25 mill for his capture?

Originally posted by truth
That would be because if we followed everything the UN said, we would be screwed over.
How so?
And be specific - after all, if you're right, you can give examples...

If we actually did what these little countries demanded, we would be stupid.
The UN is not dominated by a single little country - slovenia, for example, doesn't get to dictate policy to the UN.
However, if a majority of people say "this is how we want things done", then the UN is supposed to follow that course of action, provided it's not illegal. That's not a bad thing - it's called majority rule, or more popularly, democracy. Might want to look that up...

I think it is bad enough that we fund the majority of the UN and its operations,
Actually, you don't. The US is the single largest debtor in the UN to be sure - but they are by no means the largest contributor in any area except for vetoes on the UNSC.

and then have a country of a couple million with nothing to contribute or some dictorial regime or banana republic tell us what to do while we are paying the salaries of diplomats who want to fleece us.
Spoken like a true uneducated white trash redneck.
You're not a very good representative for hour country you know...

When the rest of the world begins to contribute what the US has, then you can speak of rules.
Actually, the rest of the world contributes far more in men, material, money and effort to the UN and it's goals (that of improving the world we live in) than the US does. And those little banana republics you so merrily disdain (ignoring your own origins in the process)? If they're so useless, why is it that they can pay their UN dues on time while the US hasn't done so in over two decades? (And don't say "oh, they have to pay so little" because they pay more than the US does in percentage of Gross National Product).

Well I have to give Kudos to the US military for executing the operation in less then 3 hours. Albeit 700 soldiers does seem like overkill, they still did the job. I am glad that they got Saddam; the man deserves to be tried for his grievous human rights record. But I do not like the possibility of Saddam being tried in Iraq proper. I feel that there will be undue influence from the US and American "apologetics" to keep the US' role in Iraq's past quiet. Also I think that the trial won't be objective at all. If anything Saddam should be tried at the ICC, so there is international objectivity and disinterest (not in that way).

Secondly lest we forget this war was not about Saddam, this war was not about capturing him, nor was it a war of a true casis belli. This war was about WMD, the US to my knowledge hasn't found any. I don't that we can excuse the wonton murder of 12,000 innocents for a man hiding like "a rat" in a hole in Ad Dawr. The war is a failure in it's basic premise, or at least the one that is generally regarded as the premise.

As for the resistance I think it will peak then it will plateau, but not disappear completely. The Secular elements will gradually lose its reason d'etre, but more fundamentalist ones will make up the gap. Also I don't think I am the only noticing this, but more and more of the attacks are taking place against civilians. I think this tactic is more to create a general unease among the Iraqi ppl so they still are scared of the rebels.

For the US today admittedly is a great day, and Bush must be having orgasmic joy. But the mission is far from over.

http://edition.cnn.com/interactive/world/0312/gallery.saddam.captured/1.saddam.beard.jpg

Well, the reason I supported the war against Iraq was to see every last trace of the former regime torn asunder and all its higher officials done away with in appropriate and, of course, somewhat sadistic manners. I never cared about WMDs, oil, or religion. I just wanted that cancerous tumor that was the old regime completely and utterly unmade. We just made a big step in that direction.

What do I think should happen to Saddam? The best possible result would be taking him to a Kurdish town and chain him in the centeral square. Then bring in the families of his victims from all over Iraq, Kuait, and anywhere else and let them do what they want. Of course the best possible result rarely happens and the best I can expect is that he is eather cleanly executed or suffers life in one of his own prisons.

I never cared about WMDs, oil, or religion. I just wanted that cancerous tumor that was the old regime completely unmade.



May I ask a simple question, why do you hate so virally the Saddam regime? What has he done that has affected you so much and so poignantly that has caused this “hatred”? Seriously I don't understand.

It's about feeling unassailably superior when there's a villain to be scourged. Saddam's a true villain, and America is giddy to have him.

I think i know why Americans so hate Saddam, although he obviously didn't have balls to kill himself. From 1990-2003 he represented a figurehead to stop Americanism. Americans "Hate" Saddam not because he was a Baddd man, no rather because he was a stumbling bloc. If Americans really hated Saddam for his human rights violations, then Americans would have been completely outraged in the 80's when most of the horrendous human rights violations still occurred. Saddam is hated because of a selfish manifest destiny that Americans believe they inherited from God it seems. For a Americans (i.e Truth,15,clock,etc) anyone who says no to the US is evil and callous and is not on the side of Freedom, this was said about France, Germany, and other democratic nations. It is very simple, ignorance, power, and the will create what we have been reading here today, and what has been happening as well.

Sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet............


Nico:
I think i know why Americans so hate Saddam, although he obviously didn't have balls to kill himself. From 1990-2003 he represented a figurehead to stop Americanism. Americans "Hate" Saddam not because he was a Baddd man, no rather because he was a stumbling bloc

Hype:
It's about feeling unassailably superior when there's a villain to be scourged. Saddam's a true villain, and America is giddy to have him.

Though I would not agree with the bit about feeling superior only because there's a villian to 'scourge'.....

This is the timeless case of one party grasping for excuses to why it is it can't ignore the other party- the other party is too good at its craft to not hate and ignore.

Saddam could in a sense be a flaming genius. But not really.

I only hope that when I grow up I know as much about the world as you do...:D

Sadly mentally deficient ppl as yourself who do nothing but waste forum space as above, don't deserve to breathe.

Acne acting up on you again?

For 17, you're an arrogant little twerp, you know that?

Care? A inferior individual like yourself would make such a asinine observation as that. Arrogance has little to do with it my dear untermensch, no, no. I just don't think you're worth the dust that's under my shoe. Come back here with a cognitive thought please.

The tail that wag the dog is almost complete!
9/11 was the catalyses, the bush administration underwent $150 Billion, several thousands dead gooses chase, and poor Saddam Hussein was the scapegoat. Osama Bin Ladin where ever you are I’m sure your having a ball. Here is to another four years of Bush and a continuing decline in world order, injustices and propaganda for all!

Saddam paid over $35 million to the kin of Palestinian suicide bombers, militants and bystanders who died in an uprising that began in 2000. (rueters)

Notice, he was not helping the palestinians in general, but supporting terror. Also, Saddam had the means and the will to make all kinds of nasty WMD's, indeed, he had them before. The question is, was he trustworthy enough for the US to believe that he destroyed his weapons? He certainly did not prove that he did, and the burden of proof was on him. So, it would be stupid not to assume he had WMD's. Wether they find some or not is irrelevant. Should the US have waited for a repeat of what happened to the Kurds to happen in Israel?, or Saudi Arabia? , or America? You don't have to hate him to see that he was a significant threat to peace and prosperity in the middle east.

Originally posted by spidergoat
(rueters)

Notice, he was not helping the palestinians in general, but supporting terror. Also, Saddam had the means and the will to make all kinds of nasty WMD's, indeed, he had them before. The question is, was he trustworthy enough for the US to believe that he destroyed his weapons? He certainly did not prove that he did, and the burden of proof was on him.
Why would the burden of proof be on him? It would have been impossible for him to prove that he didn't have WMD. Can you prove that you're not building WMD? Of course not.
He DID say he would allow the inspectors back in, which is the closest thing he could do to proving it.

The question is, was he trustworthy enough for the US to believe that he destroyed his weapons?

That was a question for March 20 2003 not at all germane to today's Iraq. The US had expected all "WMD sites" and found nothing. So who here is the one with "trustworthiness" problems?

He certainly did not prove that he did, and the burden of proof was on him. So, it would be stupid not to assume he had WMD's.

What he did was allow UN weapon inspectors in, they were kicked out by the "coalition", and it would be stupid to not allow those weapons inspectors do their job, instead of starting a phallic war. Funny thing, the US did not assume Iraq had WMD, not the US said in definitive terms that she did.

Wether they find some or not is irrelevant.

How? When the casis belli for war was WMD?

Should the US have waited for a repeat of what happened to the Kurds to happen in Israel?

This is where ignorance wears it's ugly head. If you knew anything you would know that Saddam had no control over Kurdistan. About Israel then why not go after the Saud's, Iran, etc?

or America?

What had Saddam done to the US? What capabilities did Saddam have to actually pose a threat against the US? There was no Al Qaeda connection, he surely did not have a ICBM, he had nothing to do with 9/11...just wondering what made up rhetoric do I expect to hear.

You don't have to hate him to see that he was a significant threat to peace and prosperity in the middle east.

True, and so is replacing him, catch 22.

Saddam's capture proves once more that motivated Americans accomplish things better through direct action than by endless, narcissistic babbling.

Hats off to the 4th Infantry Division.

The rest of you would be better served by not pretending the world operates according to Queensbury Rules, nor according your own wishful thinking.

The real world is not a test-tube thought experiment in some comfortable classroom where outcomes can be easily predetermined.

The rest of you would be better served by not pretending the world operates according to Queensbury Rules, nor according your own wishful thinking.

Well wait a sec. here, it wasn't me who wrote the UN charter. It was your ever so rightous USA, along with others. So essentially aren't you being a idiot?

The real world is not a test-tube thought experiment in some comfortable classroom where outcomes can be easily predetermined.

True, but in the real world. When ppl tell you not go in for your own good. You usually listen.

some people are truly ignorant.

damnit. how can you not even be in the least bit upset that the person you call president LIED to YOU and the ENTIRE world? it boggles my mind. this man is suposed to be setting an example for us? bush is a liar. simply put. he is a bumbling moron with an agenda of his own, and i cant see why you people dont realise this.

I love my country, dont get me wrong. i love it here, and i love the people. but that does not mean i have to love the government or their system. i'm sick of the assholes who tell me that if i dont like it i should leave either. it's democracy. i'm allowed not to like it, and i'm entitled to bitch about it if i dont get my way.

one last time i'd like ot ask you though, WHERE ARE THE WMD's????

Uhhh...don't u know, Saddam had a secret arsenal of flying broomsticks that would spread lice over a population centre. :rolleyes:

So, who is next !? Bring´em on ! I heard that elections in Russia were manipulated (in US it was fair :p ) and Putin do have some WMDs also (US have WMDs only for protection), so, lets roll up the sleeves and bring some democracy to them !

Hey!! not all of us here are Bush cheerleaders..

My politics, well I am a republican though I didn't choose bush, I didn't vote the last election, I was on the move from one city to another, and the whole thing was a mess when I tried, hadn't registered here and all. Crap. and they call this a democracy. Everyone that is an adult and can read, write, and understand fucking english should be able to vote, and have instant registration with proper id.

Anyhow.

They cought the sob, big deal. Where is Osama? Is he the one who is suppose to be responsible for 9-11?

The most amazing thing is that both of these sob's worked for our very own CIA at one time and another to manupalte middle eastern affairs, we financed Osama and trained the Taliban when USSR was in Afganistan, then we also did the same with Saddam, now they both gone rouge, or didn't just want to be puppets anymore!!.

http://entertainment.teleradiostereo.com/archivio/dossier/saddam.htm

http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2001/465/465p15.htm

http://orlingrabbe.com/binladin_timosman.htm

http://www.guerrillanews.com/newswire/211.html

There is something fishy going on here and CNN is not talking.

Godless.

Originally posted by 15ofthe19
We didn't start the genocide in Rwanda, Bosnia or anywhere else for that matter, but yet the U.S. consistently receives the blame for not intervening?

I don't give a rats ass what happens in Rwanda. It's not my problem, it's Africa's problem.

Yet the US felt compelled to intervene in Iraq. And not even when the massacres took place in Iraq at the hands of Saddam The US instead preferred to sit back and sell Saddam arms, arms which were probably used to kill those hundreds of thousands of people. But of course, it wasn't the problem of you or the US that he was doing this. It wasn't any of your business now was it. Do you see where I'm going with this. This is why I think it's hypocritical when after decades of non-intervention and basically turning a blind eye to other muderous regimes around the world because they just don't intervene, that the US attack Iraq under the pretense of freeing the Iraqi people, after it failed to prove the so called WMD's. What a joke. When the Iraqi people were being slaughtered by Saddam with US arms and arms sold to Saddam by the world community, where was the US then? This war in Iraq was for oil. The WMD's are still not found and the UN had stated that they no longer existed, seems they up all the WMD's the US sold them.

You're correct in saying that you didn't start the genocide in Rwanda and Bosnia, but you DID help in the genocide in Iraq when you sold them arms, with the knowledge of how he was using those arms. But of course, you didn't care what happened in Iraq then. You only cared that Iraq defeat Iran. The US has always followed the doctrine of arming and helping your enemy's enemy. Well this time it's come back and bitten the US on the arse. The Iraqi people haven't forgotten who helped Saddam all those years ago. And US soldiers can't understand why the Iraqi people hate the US. They know what happened in the past and they know what is happening in the rpesent. They know that the US is not interested in their fate. They know the US is only interested in their OIL.


And truth, I hate to burst your bubble there about the US funding the UN and paying all the dues, but it's a commonly known fact that the US does not pay their dues to the UN.



:eek:

I don't archive my own posts.

Please cite any post where I have referenced how much of the UN budget is funded by the US. I seem to have forgotten where I referenced US dues to the UN.

The problem is Americaan propaganda surely makes sure the US citizens has a short memory, and totally want's us to forget, that we trained the guy, both of them.

Osama and Saddam..

They were just puppets for a bigger game but hey!! they got paid better than the soldiers who got Saddam yesterday.

Our tax dollars at work:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/121503A.shtml

Godless

A pretty good analysis of the issues surrounding Saddam's capture can be found here: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/dec2003/sadd-d15.shtml

I shouldn't shy away from WSWS so often- Part of what you referenced jps was worth an only slightly guilty snicker. As I watched CNN, I thought it surreal that we were repeatedly presented with the exultant waving of communist flags as evidence of Iraqi pleasure at America's triumph.

"Curiously, in their breathless reports of Iraqi celebrations over Hussein’s fate, the US television networks repeatedly broadcast footage of two demonstrations in Baghdad. The first was that of supporters of the Iraqi Communist Party waving red flags emblazoned with the hammer and sickle, while the second was organized by a Shiite Muslim faction carrying portraits of ayatollahs. While both these tendencies have collaborated to one degree or another with the US occupation, neither seems a likely foundation for some new and stable US-backed regime."

--Saddam Hussein’s capture will not resolve Iraqi quagmire -wsws 15/12/03 (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/dec2003/sadd-d15.shtml)

Americans who are at odds with how much of the rest of the world perceives and reacts to the whole sad modern history of Iraq- with Iraqi reactions in in particular - could gain some valuable insight through this review.

And why be particularly afraid of WSWS, my ultra-right friends, when exultation heavily televised by CNN and Fox features red banners with hammer & sickle :D

Hi:
The news of arresting Saddam Hussein did not make me happy at all, not because he was a very good person, no, just because those who captured him were aggressors and as tyrants as the bombs they dropped on innocent Iraquis.
The Iraquis are fighting the aggressors and all good people of the world back them, like they did Vietnamese during Vietnam war. The curtain will fall when the last US aggressor leaves Iraq.
So until then.... quack-quack thanks :)

Originally posted by Morteza Olangui
The Iraquis are fighting the aggressors and all good people of the world back them

Huh? I'm among the good people and I don't back them

Originally posted by grazzhoppa
Is the Bush administratoin going to call catching Saddam "progress in Iraq?". Like all you guys said before, catching Saddam was not the reason to go into Iraq. Why do I have the feeling that the goverment will somehow use this event to combat the growing skepticism of having our military in Iraq.

The headlines in the news won't being saying "20 more US soldiers dead in helicopter crash" or "Iraq war turning Vietnam-like," they'll be giving mundane updates about what's happening to Saddam Hussein.

It was great to see the Whitehouse making a huge deal about being cheated by Cheney's ex-company...then 'all of a sudden' the army finds Saddam. The headlines were changed from death in Iraq to the controversy over Cheney's company and then to Saddam's capture. The Army knew they were getting close to Saddam with the information they got from captured Iraqi officials, so the Whitehouse sent out a big, controversial news story to hide the 'bad things' happening in Iraq. With Saddam captured...any US deaths in Iraq will just be a 2 second tiny headline scrolling across the bottom of the TV screen.

I'm glad they got the pig. But it would have been much much better if they would have killed him. I agree with Grazz that the administaration and the media will destract the public from the real important issues.
Now we'll have a long trial proving what a bad, bad man he was. After it's all over, History will remember the Iraq war as the loving Americans freeing the Iraqis by capturing and bringing-to-justice a ruthless tyrant.

Like I said this is all a “wag the dog” remember 9/11 well Bush could not stop or catch the terrorist, he could not solve the problems that cause the terrorist to attack in the first place (political control of the middles east, American imperial rule) nor does he want to. So he made Saddam as the scape goat claimed he was a threat to us with WMD and that he funds terrorist… Who doesn’t fund terrorist??? Every Islamic country in the region funds them, hell we were even funding them back in the 70’s and 80’s!, we have WMD, why don’t we invade our selves? In the end he takes over Iraq, gets money from war profiteering, gets Saddam, American people love him because it looks like he has done something when in fact he has nothing but harm, it is a total win for propaganda and political corruption.

Iraq is on its way to becoming safe after the bad man has been captured.
Just 12 hours after Saddam Hussein was captured, a car bomb exploded outside the police station in this town 60 miles west of Baghdad, and military officials said at least 17 people were killed and 33 wounded. It was the deadliest attack on American-led forces since two police stations near Baghdad were hit with car bombs three weeks ago.

What will happen to the guerrilla fighters staging such attacks, and whether the attacks will continue at the current rate and scale, are some of the questions surrounding Mr. Hussein's capture.

Athough some of the anti-American fighters could now be demoralized, experts on insurgency and terrorism said many would likely carry on the war, especially since the fighters seem to be organized in cells rather than under a central authority.
source (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/14/international/middleeast/14CND-ATTA.html?hp)


Let's see what the Arab world has to say of US actions since Saddam's capture
"By shaving his beard, a symbol of virility in Iraq and in the Arab world, the Americans committed an act that symbolizes humiliation in our region, where getting shaved by one's enemy means robbing him of his will," he said

"It's also a humiliation for all Arab leaders and a message telling them that he who does not enter the poultry yard of the Americans will experience the same fate," he said.

Saddam's arrest "will not destroy the Iraqi resistance against the US occupier," and will encourage "feelings of Arab solidarity with the Iraqi fighters," he predicted.

"On the contrary, the resistance will grow and change shape," he warned.

"There will be a kind of creativity in acts of resistance, which will diversify and intensify to wash away their shame," he said.

The Egyptian Islamist lawyer Muntasir al-Zayyat agreed that Saddam's capture would "open the door wide to the resistance."
source (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/04ED8C25-1CBE-412F-AC41-7D0B86142FD8.htm)


Peace is coming...it is just taking a detour.

Common here, the war in Iraq was not about oil. I thought the same thing at the begining of the war, but I don't think oil played a huge part in the reason d'etre for Iraq. Oil is what made Iraq important, POWER is what made the war possible.

hypewaders

I also was freaked out that on CNN all they showed was communist party sympathizers cheering, and kids on a truck with I think pics of the ayatollah. Indeed the US' adventure in Democracy will fail. Poor communists...
:(

Well, now theyve gotten him, what shall they do with him? The general tendency is for a trial in Iraq, by Iraqi judges. Other options such as a USA trial, the Hague, etc would be self defeating. Everyone else agree?
The next question would be, execute him, torture him or imprison him on bread and water till he dies. I wouldnt be too concerned by any option, bleeding heart liberal though I am.

guthrie, I'm all about a fair trial just so as long as his past employers are also brought into the trial - Rumsfeld, Bush Sr., Cheney.

This could happen possibly at the Hague but somehow dobut the Iraqi would harm their liberator. But then - the US does not recognize the ICC because we are aware of how many human rights violations we would be on trial for. :cool:

Originally posted by kajolishot
guthrie, I'm all about a fair trial just so as long as his past employers are also brought into the trial - Rumsfeld, Bush Sr., Cheney.

This could happen possibly at the Hague but somehow dobut the Iraqi would harm their liberator. But then - the US does not recognize the ICC because we are aware of how many human rights violations we would be on trial for. :cool:
Or it could be because our Constitution prohibits preemption by an international apparatus like the ICC.

I swear to god they need to make the Constitution required reading in our public schools.

The question was asked what will happen to Saddam.

options:

Remember Noriega? Saddam will be his prison mate

Who is that celeberity dictator: Will the real Saddam please stand up!!

Cut!!!! Saddam you got to act more angrily, you just got captured. Remember your lines. ACTION!!!

Proffessor why is it that you know so much about Irag history, and covert CIA operations?.

Take your pick, the perpetrator we trained is on corporate media now, anything can happen. LOL!!

:rolleyes:

Godless.

Or it could be because our Constitution prohibits preemption by an international apparatus like the ICC.

I swear to god they need to make the Constitution required reading in our public schools.Stokes, do you really think the one leads to the other? It isn't as if the US hasn't set its own precedent of deferring to international authority at times. The primary reason the Bush administration withdrew from the ICC is that being held to answer for our actions in comparison to the agreements we've made in the history of this nation is inconvenient.

The thing is that the Constitution also affords us a more direct and American way. Bush has trampled the Constitution, has lied to the American people, and brought disrepute to the Oval Office of such magnitude as congressional Republicans during the Clinton era could only pray for. All we really need is for our elected federal representatives to put aside their partisan bickering and do their jobs and impeach the Shrub.

I'm actually chuckling at the Constitutional chess game going on with Veep and the Enron notes. Separation of Powers, Dick?

Maybe the IGC can leave Saddam alone in a cell some pictures of what the Italians did to Benito and a cyanide tablet and "encourage" him to save everyone the drama and time of a trial and just take care of business.

It's not like anyone is really going to cry too much is he's gone.

Originally posted by 15ofthe19
Maybe the IGC can leave Saddam alone in a cell some pictures of what the Italians did to Benito and a cyanide tablet and "encourage" him to save everyone the drama and time of a trial and just take care of business.

It's not like anyone is really going to cry too much is he's gone.

See, this is why I don't support the death penalty. At a conservative estimate, this man ordered the deaths of 300,000 people over 30 years.
And you'd give him a quick, clean death with at the most, ten minutes of suffering.
:bugeye:
Talk about soft on crime...

The only sentence that makes even a half-iota of sense is life at hard labour in an unpleasant place, like breaking rocks in siberia.

Ah, but here's the rub - he'd get to tell everyone about his relationship with the US, wouldn't he?
Can't have that, now can we? :rolleyes:

Ah, but here's the rub - he'd get to tell everyone about his relationship with the US, wouldn't he?
Can't have that, now can we?

Even worse, he'd get to tell everyone about his relationships with Russia, Germany, and his particularly intimate relationship with his good buddy Chirac.

Originally posted by nico

May I ask a simple question, why do you hate so virally the Saddam regime? What has he done that has affected you so much and so poignantly that has caused this “hatred”? Seriously I don't understand.


Now this is a very good question which I would like all the posters supporting the war to answer.

Why is that we stop going after Dick Cheney's buddy Bin Laden and start attacking Iraq with full might without any link to 911 ...is that not the reason is first place to send out troops to fight terrorism.

Why Iraq .... what was the urgency ... why did we not attack in 89 when the Chemical Weapons were used ....ofcourse supplied by us...

Our media sucks .... someone should have the balls to speak up in the media ...

We have never stopped hunting for Bin Laden. We recently lauched the largest land-based assault to date against insurgents in Afghanistan. That is not to say that we haven't lost some of the focus due to the situation in Iraq requiring many of our better-qualified elements. But it's worth noting that we have never ceased pursuing Bin Laden.

"Cheney's buddy Bin Laden"...LOL. You have been hanging out on the democraticunderground haven't you? It's ok to admit it. I like to browse the forum myself when I need a good laugh. I especially love the 9/11 conspiracy forum where they have all the photoshop images of 757's with rockets firing into the Pentagon. Great stuff. You should check out Fark.com if you're into that sort of thing. They have contests.

Why wait for the media to speak up. This is the internet. Get yourself a page and proclaim your truth!:D

Originally posted by Guru
Why Iraq .... what was the urgency ... why did we not attack in 89 when the Chemical Weapons were used ....ofcourse supplied by us...

Our media sucks .... someone should have the balls to speak up in the media ...

Because to the US at the time, Iraq was fighting against communism and therefore Saddam was a friend. You know the old saying... help your enemy's enemy. Saddam only fell into disfavour with the US when he attacked Kuwait. It's almost as if they gave him carte blanche... you can kill as many people as you want, just don't threaten their oil:rolleyes:.



:eek:

Originally posted by tiassa
Stokes, do you really think the one leads to the other? They are one in the same. Ratification of the ICC would stand in direct contention with Article III Section 1. So regardless of the vitriol that any of us harbors toward the incumbent administration, rejection of the ICC cannot be attributed to it.
Originally posted by the US Constitution
Article III Section 1:

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office. http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

Originally posted by Stokes Pennwalt
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.

Wow. That's your whole argument?
So, when you're searched at the airport by the TSA, you quote the fourth and refuse the search? :)

(Besides, last time I checked, the judicial power of the US wasn't affected by the ICC. The ICC tries crimes against international law, not crimes against domestic law.)

True Sparks, and in Article one we don't see a reference to international law, in which the US has signed on to (UN charter, Geneva conventions, the whole lotte) . I don't think the civilian courts in the US like the Supreme courts deal with military issues overseas. Also the jurisdiction of any supreme court is only on a national level. That clause that Stokes would apply if the US military was under the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. If a soldier in Iraq kills oh... a wounded Iraqi lets say. I don’t think the Supreme Court can prosecute the case. The US can indeed join the ICC, there is no constitutional hoopla, it's only made up again by dyselxiawalt. But wanna see what the US can do:

On 2 August 2002, President George W. Bush signed the supplemental appropriations bill, making the American Servicemembers' Protection Act binding US national law. This act includes a provision that authorizes the use of military force to free any citizen of the US or ally country being held by the Court in The Hague. In addition, the law provides for the withdrawal of U.S. military assistance from countries ratifying the ICC treaty, and restricts U.S. participation in United Nations peacekeeping unless the U.S. obtains immunity from prosecution. There is a clause, however, that allows the President to waive these provisions on basis of "national interest."



LET"S INVADE THE NETHERLANDS!

Were you to join the military and one day find yourself serving in combat or in a peacekeeping role in say Angola, and it was the policy of Angola to seize any peacekeeper accused of a war crime and turn them over to the jurisdiction of the ICC, regardless of whether the charges were substantiated, would you feel safe serving in that country?

Do you really want to be open to a tribunal that would have countries with deplorable human rights records on the panel?

was the policy of Angola to seize any peacekeeper accused of a war crime and turn them over to the jurisdiction of the ICC, regardless of whether the charges were substantiated, would you feel safe serving in that country?


Ehmm...obviously the ICC would scoff at such an idiotic charge and in your case scoff at your existence as I do right now. It would be paramount to the ICC reversing the UN authority in a UN lead peacekeeping mission. The ICC exists if HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES TAKE PLACE! not politics. :rolleyes: typical conservative mischaracterization, and stupidity.

Do you really want to be open to a tribunal that would have countries with deplorable human rights records on the panel?

Well I know the US, China, Iraq, Russia aren't part of it so why not.

Edit: Angola isn't even part of the ICC. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by EI_Sparks
Wow. That's your whole argument?Perhaps the most wonderful aspect of the Constitution is its simplicity. Also, I don't understand how your TSA analogy bears relevance here. The Fourth protects against involuntary search and siezure. If you are traveling, you willingly subject yourself to TSA policy, thus the search is completely voluntary.(Besides, last time I checked, the judicial power of the US wasn't affected by the ICC. The ICC tries crimes against international law, not crimes against domestic law.)The judicial power of the US would be impinged upon by the ICC were it to be given ascendancy over domestic or military law. The Framers of the Constitution made damned sure that the rest of the world (namely, at that time, Europe) would stay out of our business in the future.

http://webpages.charter.net/rylandpage/emot-lol.gif international law http://webpages.charter.net/rylandpage/emot-lol.gif

*lol*international law *lol*

So then the resolutions that Saddam broke are also laughable to right? :rolleyes: Don't be categorical it does you no favours.

The Framers of the Constitution made damned sure that the rest of the world (namely, at that time, Europe) would stay out of our business in the future.

Back then I don't think they would have imagined US troops in Iraq. You also again mischaracterize, no one here is suggesting that the ICC infringe on domestic US laws, and the supreme court can deal with crimes that were committed in the US. But internationally the Supreme court has no jurisdiction. The constitution said Supreme court, to my knowledge the supreme court isn't the world court. Thus making your analysis incomplete, and infantile in thought.

Originally posted by Stokes Pennwalt
]Or it could be because our Constitution prohibits preemption by an international apparatus like the ICC.

I swear to god they need to make the Constitution required reading in our public schools.


Beware, ya'll. The ICC and the rest of the world is out to trash our constitution.

Onyango-Obbo, Charles. "'Secret' of Lion of Iraq's Seizure." Daily Nation on the Web, December 18, 2003. See http://www.nationaudio.com/News/DailyNation/Today/Comment/Comment1812200311.html

I came across this article which alleges there is more to Saddam's capture than meets the eye.According to DEBKAfile analysts, these anomalies point to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein was not in hiding; he was a prisoner._

They believe that after his last audiotaped message was delivered and aired over al Arabiya TV on Sunday November 16, on the occasion of Ramadan, Saddam was seized, possibly with the connivance of his own men, and held in that hole in Adwar for three weeks or more, which would have accounted for his appearance and condition. Meanwhile, his captors bargained for the $25m (Sh1.8 billion) prize the Americans promised for information leading to his capture alive or dead.

The negotiations were mediated by Jalal Talabani’s Kurdish PUK militia. This would explain why the first reports about the capture of Saddam came from the state-run news agency in Iran – quoting Talabani. (Daily Nation (http://www.nationaudio.com/News/DailyNation/Today/Comment/Comment1812200311.html))The DEBKA article: http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=743

I make no claims at this time as to the implications.

Why not just let the ICC have jurisdiction over peopel in otehr countries? The way it looks to me jsut now is that the USA is saying you cant try anyone of oru people, anywhwere. Which de facto implies that the only competent means of trying a US citizen or soldier abroad, is the US's way, which means the USA is impinging on other countries own rights and responsibilities.
So, hey, why doesnt the USA just withdraw back into its shell?

"the policy of Angola to seize any peacekeeper accused of a war crime and turn them over to the jurisdiction of the ICC, regardless of whether the charges were substantiated, would you feel safe serving in that country?"

I'd feel a damn sight safer in the Hague or suchlike than I would in Angola. And then of course, when the charges were thrown out, Id be home and dry. So wheres the problem?