wheres the war crimes lawyers? we already have one saying members of the AFD could be liable to inditment (B\W orders wasnt a valid excuse in the nuremburg trials was it?) http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,6065283^661,00.html
What war crimes? Where? Oh you mean when Saddam killed a bunch of his people with gas, or are we talking about the time that he created those illegal missles that they just found?
You know, Asguard, if you guys bent your efforts towards bringing Hussain to "justice" instead, there wouldn't be any grounds for the US to move in in the first place. Or hadn't you considered that?
Isn't it odd. The freedom and justice folks have not been piketing and protesting at Iraqi embasies. Just goes to show how phony they are.
Are people protesting the US because 1) they think that removing Saddam is wrong 2) they think the US is going about it wrong 3) they think the US is doing it for other reasons ?
Because they don't want to be killed either by him or by us. Like Saddam wouldn't organize a demonstration. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
so what if Saddam killed his own ppl with gas? since when is the US so concerned about human rights.... about those illegal missiles.. as i said in the other thread coffee, it wouldn't make sense for the iraqis to destroy em if the US is gonna invade anyway.. when you say bring him to 'justice', what do you mean? for all the crap he's pulled on the iraqis? or for bein non compliant with UN resolutions? if its the former, refer to my response to coffee's remarks... if its the latter, plz go check the plenty of threads in this section regarding the non compliance of US and Israel of UN resolutions... all im asking is, gimme a good reason for this war... sure, it would be great for iraqis is Saddam stepped down, but what is the guarantee that the next regime or govt is not gonna be as oppressive? If Saddam is the target, why have a full scale war just to oust him? send in the CIA.. pull some covert ish... im sure it can be done... why need to blow ur trumpet all around the globe??
I will admit that this about protecting Kuwaiti. But hey, if we can get rid of an evil man at the same time, why not. And about the missles: THEY FOUND ILLEGAL MISSLES THAT AREN"T SUPPOSE TO BE THERE. He's destroying the missles now as a delay tactic, to scave off the UN inspectors, and war, for a day or two so that he can hide the rest of his weapons.
umm.. dats pure speculation... the UN inspectors are runnin around for so long and didnt find anything, but now they found somethin and Saddam is destroyin em so that the inspectors dont find the other so called WMD's... nice theory.. even if he does have WMD's, the inspectors can over some time disarm em... no need to rush into aggression just based on some petty missiles... there is no immediate threat.. if there was, the american govt would've finished this 3 months ago...
Asguard : "Saddam is better than a full scale civil war" Prove it. Prove that Saddam causes less casualties amongst his people than a war would. Do it. Prove that a regime under Saddam would cause a lesser loss of human life and freedom than not going to war would. Do it. I ask you. If you want to fight morals, then fight morals. If you want to play morals, then play morals. Let's play make believe. Show me how the continuing loss of Iraqi life justifies your "let's not interfere" stance. Do it. Show me how your "We don't have the right to interfere" and your "Human life is valuable" ideals stand up in the face of reality. Go ahead. Show me. Show me that your "we don't have the right to interfere" is anything more than rhetoric, saying "we don't care how many people die, as long as they're not ours". Show me. Justify yourself. I ask you. Show me that you care so much for the people of Iraq. Tell me how they'll be better off as they are. Do it. Let's play at morals.
LOL! Like those missiles would help him if the US attacked! ROFL! If he wanted to save his booty, he would've walked away when they gave him the chance. He really does have bad timing. He tries to stall, but then he steps back after the fire button has already been pressed. Shooting-Into-The-Air Supremacy
Marquis, American intervention will cause more death and suffering, because we have no mandate; because resentment for our meddling (backing/arming Saddam, abandonment of Palestinians, abandonment of Kurds, abandoning Shia, propping up several corrupt monarchies/dictators in the region, various couterproductive interventions, offending Islam) will undoubtably stir up regional violence that we will not have the staying power or ruthlessness to control. Saddam needs to go, but there are 3 countries who will cause greater disruption by volunteering for this service: The US, Britain, and Israel. All 3 are presently allies with a common agenda, as far as the Arab world is concerned, and to them allowing significant developments, even positive ones, to expand the influence of any of the inseperable 3 is utterly unacceptable. That the certain opposition to this trio will cause much more devastation in the near future requires no special proof. Marquis, I would expect no proof would be needed to convince you that foreign invasion and occupation of the United States for the removal of George W. Bush, and the destruction of America's weapons arsenal would not go over well, and would quite predictably worsen the situation for all concerned. You and other superficial observers will have your indisputable proof, regardless, as the Bushevik adventure unravels and ignites civil war not only in Iraq, but very possibly in Saudi Arabia and other weak monarchies as well. This will be the most significant foreign occupation in the Mideast since 1948 and it has almost zero probability of going well. It takes no genius, only familiarity with the destructive potential of long-building Mideast pressures, to realize that this irresponsible provocation will cost many more deaths than the imperfect but ongoing (and successful) multilateral process of disarming, monitoring, isolating, and weakening Saddam.
Are you suggesting that the Arab world is planning this? I don't believe any country has the authority or ability to do such a thing. It would be an amusing attempt though. You mean ongoing, with quite a few imperfections. For example, when Iraq kicked out weapons inspectors. Oh, wait...Saddam didn't start cooperating again until the US threatened him.
that's not what i meant.. u gotta be pretty darn stupid to think that the iraqis would have a chance based on those missiles against the US.. wat i meant was, wats the point of disarming if the americans are gonna go in... the whole point of this was that if they found any weapons, they'd ask iraq to dismantle em.. and if they are disarmin, then there should be no war... dismantle = no war.. that's what it should be.. instead dismantle = war... wats the point then...
No, no, no! The point was this: The UN told Iraq to declare any banned weapons before they started searching Iraq. Iraq made their declaration. UN goes in and finds MORE banned weapons. Iraq attempts to say it will dismantle the FOUND banned weapons. Point: If Iraq didn't declare these BANNED weapons, what other BANNED weapons are they possessing. The game is up for Iraq. They got busted. They knew the consequences of trying to hide these weapons. Now they are out of excuses.
It was Iraq's responsibility to declare all banned weapons. It was Iraq's responsibility to disclose everything to the UN inspection team. Iraq didn't. The declaration was their last chance. They're done asking Iraq to dismantle BANNED weapons. The UN inspection team went in to confirm that Iraq had no more BANNED weapons that weren't previously disclosed in the weapons declaration. It was not the intent to send the inspection team out there to find the weapons Iraq was hiding so they could slap Saddam on the wrist and tell him to get rid of them. It was supposed to be proof that he is a good guy now. Well, he isn't. Buh-bye Mr. Hussein.
Vakemp:"Are you suggesting that the Arab world is planning [invasion/occupation of US]?" Of course not, and obviously they have no capability to do so. If I had been more clear, or perhaps if you had more sensitivity to context, you would have not misread. I was making a far-fetched example to attempt communication of Mideastern resistance to American intervention. It is always difficult to help those who think colonialism is still viable, to begin to understand the perspective of modern inhabitants of potential colonies, who will no longer accept foreign domination. "You mean ongoing, with quite a few imperfections." Yes. I think I already said that. "For example, when Iraq kicked out weapons inspectors." This is a common distortion of fact that keeps returning time and again, like the one about Kuwaiti babies being thrown from incubators. Chief inspector Richard Butler withdrew inspectors when their safety was jeapordized by impending US attacks, which security council members did not agree in authorizing. Saddam never ordered UNSCOM out. The withdrawal, not expulsion, is a matter of record, as is the scandal at the UN over expulsion of individual American UNSCOM inspectors, accused and later confirmed CIA operatives; this UN breakdown precipitated Clinton's abandonment of inspections for a more, shall we say diverting approach to more than one embarrassment. "Sometimes the truth is so precious it must be accompanied by a bodyguard of lies." - Donald Rumsfeld "Oh, wait...Saddam didn't start cooperating again until the US threatened him." There is no correlation with public US threats and in fact the record shows them to have at times been counterproductive. When consistent with UN resolutions, the effect has been positive, especially when backed up by a strong international coalition. Here (1 2 3) are some more sources, if you wish to learn facts and not fabrications. It is not to love the liar Saddam to insist that we not sink to his depraved level; on the contrary, it is the only way to truly defeat him.
O you people make it so easy! I HAVE BUT ONE THING TO SAY TOO YOU! Put the Coffee down and Pick up a book. Not the newspaper. Not Dan Rather. Someone once said that a story has two sides but for some reason a lot of youse people on this site never heard that before. You make these one sided statements that reflect just how you've aquired the bit of brain cell you all have.
