Saddam's family fires defense team

[Mechagodzilla]

Regardless of Saddam's crimes and no matter how obviously guilty, he should be given an international trial.
Even if only to dissolve any claims of corruption and bias, either real or mythological, it's worth it.

Having the US be judge jury and executioner over a case in which it was undeniably involved would provide propaganda to fuel the terrorists, regardless of outcome. It just perpetuates the same negative image of the US that started all this crap decades ago. The terror conflict is all about image, not explosions. People need to realize that.

 

[CptStern]

Lets look at this statement.

Bush isnt directly responsible for Abu Gharib. Morally, perhaps he is, the commanders are the ones who failed here.

I dont agree, the order came from the executive branch ...directly from rumsfeld. Bush sent memos to lawyers who looked up the legality of torturing prisoners ..the sent him memos back saying the geneva accords dont apply, he sent memos back to his underlings

source

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

that doesnt excuse anything

Helps explain any reason why. As to not just be neutral at it for no reason at all whatsoever.

but iraq is your interest, you didnt do this out of the kindness of your heart or because you felt threatened ...a handful of greedy neo-cons decided to make a powerplay in the middle east because they felt it was in america's best interests

It's a case where it runs both ways. A victory for the Iraqi rebels against the Hussein regime, and the people after his fall, and now we have a government there who is no longer outright hostile to us.

..there hasnt been a decade in the last 50 years where the US hasnt been conducting some operation somewhere in promotion of their interests. That's how you conduct business. You will never become isolationist

Isolationist doesn't mean we can't work towards our own interests. Obviously with a global economy unlike that of earlier times, things happen globally, it just means we focus more on our own problems, rather than the rest of the world's. We can't afford to send brave people to die in the name of *insert outside group's interest here.* An example, as an isolationist society we probably still would have driven Hussein out of Kuwait. It's a high danger to our economy. We can no longer afford to try to be allies with everybody, as our forefathers put, traders with all, allegiance with none. It doesn't mean we can't be friendly with nations. It means we're not going to get tangled up in webs of international incidents anymore.

 

[seinfeldrules]

in otrher words ...you didnt give a shit about kurds being slaughtered, you were too busy trying to secure your oil contracts ...proves how "humanitarian" you really are

Stern google Anfal Campaign. It occured in 1988. That was when Saddam killed the most Kurds. You are talking about a war fought between nations. Again:

From 1983 to 1990, the US government approved around $200 million in arms sales to Iraq, according to the Stockholm International Peace Institute (SIPRI). [2] These sales amounted to less than 1% of the total arms sold to Iraq in the relevant period, though the US also sold helicopters which, although designated for civilian use, were immediately deployed by Iraq in its war with Iran. [3]

Having the US be judge jury and executioner over a case in which it was undeniably involved would provide propaganda to fuel the terrorists, regardless of outcome. It just perpetuates the same negative image of the US that started all this crap decades ago. The terror conflict is all about image, not explosions. People need to realize that.

Why shouldnt he be tried by the democratically elected gov't of Iraq where he commited his crimes. They deserve to hold this trial.

 

[jabberwock95]

It's a case where it runs both ways. A victory for the Iraqi rebels against the Hussein regime, and the people after his fall, and now we have a government there who is no longer outright hostile to us.

Well, congratulations to the US government.

They have successfully managed to replace the government of Iraq with one that they have a significant amount of control over. Hard to tell whether anything will be better for the Iraquis in the long run, but for Bush it couldnt really have turned out better.

 

[Kare Bear]

It would be good to have an iraqi judge try Saddam.

 

[No Limit]

Are you saying you dont consider Saddam guilty of genocide/mass murder?

Never said that.

But I know you are saying that Bush isn't guilty of breaking international law that lead to the killing of thousands of innocent Iraqis. The Iraq war was illegal, the torture that was ordered by Bush's administration is illegal, using napalm is illegal, keeping prisoners locked up without allowing any access to a lawyer is illegal, along with many other laws that Bush broke. But I don't see you calling for him to be exported to Iraq and having the victims of his arrogance deal with him like you are with Saddam. Everyone deserves a fair trial, no matter if it is Bush or Saddam; but for some reason the right wing doesn't seem to want to play by that rule. You guys have this pattern of spreading propogenda like you did leading up to the Iraq war; just spread a bunch of lies, make a bunch of unsupported claims and then label anyone that disagrees unpatriotic. Instead of wanting all the facts to come out you guys suppress any information that disproves your arrogant allegations, like Bolton, the guy Bush appointed to the UN without getting senate approval, did.

 

[CptStern]

Helps explain any reason why. As to not just be neutral at it for no reason at all whatsoever.

so you're saying the oil shortage answer is better than no answer at all? ...that logic isnt sound. that's extreme optomism or just blind patriotism ..forget about all the politics here ..these were human beings that were gassed. not condemning it is tantamount to agreeing with it.

It's a case where it runs both ways. A victory for the Iraqi rebels against the Hussein regime, and the people after his fall, and now we have a government there who is no longer outright hostile to us.

disturbing self-serving attitude aside that' s what you did with saddam in the first place ..you helped overthrow Abd al Karim Qassim in 1963 that consolidated the Ba'athist's power ..saddam was the head of Ba'ath's intelligence agency and had close working ties with the CIA who provided saddam with a list of 4000 suspected communists ...within a month almost all 4000 were dead ...you manufactured Saddam into what he is today. ..from promising young tyrant and murderer to today's disheveled broken shell of a dictator ...oh and I predict that sooner or later whatever government the US installs will turn against them ....history proves me right

Isolationist doesn't mean we can't work towards our own interests. Obviously with a global economy unlike that of earlier times, things happen globally, it just means we focus more on our own problems, rather than the rest of the world's.

oh I see, keep on meddling with affairs of other countries but leave the humanitarian missions to everyone else

We can't afford to send brave people to die in the name of *insert outside group's interest here.*

oh spare me your stifling patriotism ..you didnt go into iraq to help any special interest group ..YOU are the special interest group ..you went into iraq to benefit america and america alone ...not for safety, not for humanitarianism but for consolidation of power in the middle east

An example, as an isolationist society we probably still would have driven Hussein out of Kuwait.

again that was self serving ....how many citizens of kuwait died during the invasion

It's a high danger to our economy.

do you hear yourself, have you lost all touch with humanity that you can stand there and say money and the pursuit of wealth has more weight than human life?

We can no longer afford to try to be allies with everybody, as our forefathers put, traders with all, allegiance with none. It doesn't mean we can't be friendly with nations. It means we're not going to get tangled up in webs of international incidents anymore.

you dont seem to understand ...you strongarm your way around the world. If you cant conduct your affairs through legal means you'll do it by force

 

[CptStern]

Stern google Anfal Campaign. It occured in 1988. That was when Saddam killed the most Kurds. You are talking about a war fought between nations. Again:

ummmmmm yes? is that what you want to hear? what's your point seinfeldrules? ..that saddam is a murderer? ...I think we all know that ...but I do seem to recall that US supplied helicoptors were used in the most notorious of those campaigns: Halabja. Incidentily when the news of the massacre at Halabja started to make it's way into the media the US attempted to shift the blame on Iran ..they even tried to persuade their allies to do the same

Why shouldnt he be tried by the democratically elected gov't of Iraq where he commited his crimes. They deserve to hold this trial.

because iraqis arent the only ones with legitimate beefs against saddam ...iran could charge saddam with war crimes for attacks during the anfal campaign against iranian kurds and iranian civilians, kurds in turkey could also charge him with crimes against humanity

 

[baxter]

From 1983 to 1990, the US government approved around $200 million in arms sales to Iraq, according to the Stockholm International Peace Institute (SIPRI). [2] These sales amounted to less than 1% of the total arms sold to Iraq in the relevant period, though the US also sold helicopters which, although designated for civilian use, were immediately deployed by Iraq in its war with Iran. [3]

According to this article the US provided much more than that.

http://www.ips-dc.org/iraq/primer4.htm#35

During its alliance with the United States in the 1970s and 1980s, Iraq had active programs producing chemical and biological weapons, and researching and working towards production of a nuclear weapon. These programs were actively and knowingly supported by U.S. corporations and the U.S. government, as revealed in 1994 House Banking Committee hearings. Those hearings revealed, among other things, that the American Type Culture Collection, a company outside of Washington DC, had provided Iraq with the seed stock for biological weapons agents including anthrax, botulinum, e-coli and many more, under license by the U.S. Commerce Department.

A leak in the German newspaper die Tageszeitung of some of the 8,000 pages that Washington deleted from Iraq's December 7, 2002, arms declaration provided further information.The deleted sections documented 24 U.S. corporations, 55 U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations, and a number of U.S. government agencies that provided parts, material, training and other assistance to Iraq's chemical, biological, missile, and nuclear weapons programs throughout the 1970s and 80s, some continuing till the end of 1990. The U.S. corporations include Honeywell, Rockwell, Hewlett Packard, Dupont, Eastman Kodak, Bechtel, and more. U.S. government Departments of Energy, Commerce, Defense and Agriculture, as well as federal laboratories at Sandia, Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore, were also involved.

A major front-page article in the Washington Post (December 30, 2002) further documented U.S. support for Iraq's WMD programs, especially the chemical program, including trade in weapons and other military goods. The article also detailed the active involvement of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, then a special envoy of President Reagan to Iraq, in reestablishing full diplomatic relations and improving trade and other economic ties that bolstered Washington's military support of Iraq.


Other Republican insiders were involved in shady deals that helped build Iraq's WMDs. In 1989, news broke of a secret $4 billion loan made to Iraq by a U.S. branch of Banca Nazionale del Lavoro (BNL) of Italy, which at the time employed Henry Kissinger on its Consulting Board for International Policy. Congressman Henry Gonzalez, chair of the banking committee, also noted that an executive of Kissinger Associates met Saddam Hussein in Baghdad in June 1989 at a meeting in which the Iraqi leader apparently expressed interest in expanding commercial relations with the U.S. "Many Kissinger Associates clients received U.S. export licenses for exports to Iraq. Several were also the beneficiaries of BNL loans to Iraq," Congressman Gonzalez wrote in a letter to then-President Bush (senior). Iraq also used the BNL loans to attempt to buy difficult-to-manufacture nuclear weapons components

 

[CptStern]

freakin kissinger had a hand in every underhanded deal of the last half century ...man is he ever prolific

 

[seinfeldrules]

ummmmmm yes? is that what you want to hear? what's your point seinfeldrules? ..that saddam is a murderer? ...I think we all know that ...but I do seem to recall that US supplied helicoptors were used in the most notorious of those campaigns: Halabja. Incidentily when the news of the massacre at Halabja started to make it's way into the media the US attempted to shift the blame on Iran ..they even tried to persuade their allies to do the same

also sold helicopters which, although designated for civilian use, were immediately deployed by Iraq in its war with Iran. [3]

Its not like we sold him Apache attack helos.

because iraqis arent the only ones with legitimate beefs against saddam ...iran could charge saddam with war crimes for attacks during the anfal campaign against iranian kurds and iranian civilians, kurds in turkey could also charge him with crimes against humanity

Saddam's was a murderous dictator over Iraq for decades. Are you saying that they dont deserve this more than anyone?

 

[CptStern]

Its not like we sold him Apache attack helos.

they were crop dusters ...cant see how crop dusters could be used to deploy chemical attacks ...nope

Saddam's was a murderous dictator over Iraq for decades. Are you saying that they dont deserve this more than anyone?

so that negates the iranian kurds and civilians right to justice? what's the big deal seinfeldrules? why shouldnt he tried in an international court?

 

[seinfeldrules]

cant see how crop dusters could be used to deploy chemical attacks

They could also be used to help grow crops. A suprising thought in a country that needed to beg all its food off of us.

why shouldnt he tried in an international court?

Do they administer the death penalty?

so that negates the iranian kurds and civilians right to justice?

He can have a trial in Iraq then one in Iran.

 

[CptStern]

They could also be used to help grow crops. A suprising thought in a country that needed to beg all its food off of us.

no they didnt need to "beg" for food ..iraq was one of the better industrialised nations in the middle east

also there was a congressional investigation into dual-use weapons/goods ...read up on it it's quite revealing ..it's in that first link I provided

Do they administer the death penalty?

who are you to prescribe what is appropriate? How is the US judicial system in any way connected to his transgressions? in my opinion rotting in a prison is far more fitting than lethal injection. For the sake of justice all charges against him should be heard, not just the ones the US sees fit to pursue


even if you arent astute enough to see the real motivation behind the decision to try saddam in a american led court .. the US has a real interest in keeping the trial out of international court

He can have a trial in Iraq then one in Iran.

it cant work like that ...if the US err sorry the Iraqi courts sentence him to death how is justice for iranians being served? they could have ruled differently


admit it you're just afraid (as is the US) that all past dirty dealings between saddam and the US will see the light of day .....with good reason I might add. I wouldnt want that all coming out ..bad PR

 

[seinfeldrules]

For the sake of justice all charges against him should be heard, not just the ones the US sees fit to pursue

The IRAQI people see fit to pursue, not the US.

even if you arent astute enough to see the real motivation behind the decision to try saddam in a american led court .. the US has a real interest in keeping the trial out of international court

No matter where he is tried it will draw huge media coverage. Come on stern you know better than that. You want to turn this into a trial against America, not one against Saddam. That is YOUR motivation. Luckily, this will not happen and the Iraqi people will have the final say. You shame his victims just as you did when London was bombed.

 

[jabberwock95]

How can you possibly believe that the US will give Saddam a fair trial?

How can the Iraqi people have the final say in an American court?

And finally, how is CptStern 'shaming' the victims of Saddam? The american government are the ones crying for blood in exchange for deaths they had a hand in. Could they be more hypocritical?


"Patriotism is the virtue of the vicous" according to Oscar Wilde. I am beginning to agree with him.

 

[seinfeldrules]

How can you possibly believe that the US will give Saddam a fair trial?

Not the US, the Iraqi court.

How can the Iraqi people have the final say in an American court?

It isnt American...

And finally, how is CptStern 'shaming' the victims of Saddam? The american government are the ones crying for blood in exchange for deaths they had a hand in. Could they be more hypocritical?

Its plain old silly to blame Saddam's crimes on America. Please realize what you are saying. You care more about screwing America then punishing Saddam.

 

[CptStern]

The IRAQI people see fit to pursue, not the US.

you mean the US appointed tribunal ...ya I can see how they dont have a hand in it

"The New York Times notes in a June 7 article that American advisers will be closely involved in every aspect of the trial. “More than 50 American advisers,” the newspaper reports, “have been training several hundred Iraqi investigators and judges, none of whom had experience with human rights laws or handling such complex cases.” The article continues: “With American advice, the Iraqis will decide what charges to bring and will run the trials.”



"The law under which Hussein and other former Baathist officials are being held and tried was promulgated by the United States, which has no legal basis for exercising authority over the people of Iraq. For this reason, Hussein has refused to recognize the legitimacy of the tribunal and his lawyers have indicated that they will not present a defense."

source

No matter where he is tried it will draw huge media coverage.

that has nothing to do with it ..here is why saddam wont receive a fair trial


here's a list of objections to the Special Tribunal

Come on stern you know better than that. You want to turn this into a trial against America, not one against Saddam. That is YOUR motivation.

no it's not, my motivation is justice ...will you deny citizens of Kuwait to have their day in court with saddam? you defended them when saddam invaded why wont you let them seek justice for the invasion?

Luckily, this will not happen and the Iraqi people will have the final say.

sure they will:

"American advisers will be closely involved in every aspect of the trial. “More than 50 American advisers,” the newspaper reports, “have been training several hundred Iraqi investigators and judges, none of whom had experience with human rights laws or handling such complex cases.” The article continues: “With American advice, the Iraqis will decide what charges to bring and will run the trials.”

You shame his victims just as you did when London was bombed.

seems to me like you're the only one convinced of that

 

[CptStern]

Its plain old silly to blame Saddam's crimes on America.

once again you havent read a single word of any of the documentation I've presented ...you're not much fun to debate seinfeldrules ...you argument always boils down to mentally sticking your fingers in your ears and saying loudly "blahblahblah"

 

[jabberwock95]

Please realize what you are saying. You care more about screwing America then punishing Saddam.

Do I care more that the most powerful nation on Earth has a corrupt and inept government that is almost Orwellian in its deception of the public, than making sure that an evil former-dictator (who, by the way, is less dangerous than your average mugger when he isnt put in charge of a country) gets the death penalty instead of life imprisonment?

I guess I do.

 

[baxter]

Its plain old silly to blame Saddam's crimes on America. Please realize what you are saying. You care more about screwing America then punishing Saddam

I personally care that anybody who has a hand in acts of genocide is punished.
Brushing the complete truth under the carpet would be the biggest shame on the victims.
If that truth involves shaming America, Britain or any other country for that matter, so be it.

 

[No Limit]

Please realize what you are saying. You care more about screwing America then punishing Saddam.

Seinfeld, please realize what you are saying. You think its okay to not give Saddam a fair trial since it will make America look bad. Well duh, newsflash for you, America did wrong. Now I don't know if this has anything to do with the fact that mostly during the years America did wrong it was a Republican led country but you want to hide what we did and then spit on Saddam for what he did. Both need to be punished for their role. Its time America stops having its own rules and actually joins the world community. Do you think it will be a good thing for us to say to the rest of the world "**** off" when China is in the process of becoming the most powerful nation on earth? I'm not accusing you personally but the right wing in general has this syndrome where they think they have the greatest penis in the universe and can **** anyone they please. It will come back to bite us in the ass one day, I gurantee you.

 

[seinfeldrules]

You think its okay to not give Saddam a fair trial since it will make America look bad.

I think that Saddam should be tried by Iraq and whatever form of a Supreme Court they use.

Well duh, newsflash for you, America did wrong.

Somebody else was supplying Saddam with massive amounts of weaponry. Probably many of the nations that are calling out America. Nations like Russia, Germany, and France. Why all the focus on America when these nations performed just as badly, if not worse. Hell, even after UN sanctions they sold Saddam weaponry. Where is the outrage over that? I sense international (internal as well) bias.

you mean the US appointed tribunal ...ya I can see how they dont have a hand in it

How else would they learn law and how a court is run? Iraq has been under dictorial rule for decades. Its not like many (if any) Iraqis can just jump in as a judge without proper training.

Do you think it will be a good thing for us to say to the rest of the world "**** off" when China is in the process of becoming the most powerful nation on earth?

Well, when China decides to **** up a few countries in Asia (possiblities: Taiwan, Japan, the Koreas) who do you think the world will turn to? The 'wait and see for 12 years' UN wont be much of a help. It will be America and NATO.

Its time America stops having its own rules and actually joins the world community.

We are our own free, independent nation.

 

[Top Secret]

Stern, when are you going to stop blaming every American? I don't mind Bush/govermental bashing but seriously, you act like every American wants to go "kill me some ragheads".

 

[CptStern]

Stern, when are you going to stop blaming every American? I don't mind Bush/govermental bashing but seriously, you act like every American wants to go "kill me some ragheads".

point to exactly the passage where I say/imply this ...I'm waiting

 

[No Limit]

I think that Saddam should be tried by Iraq and whatever form of a Supreme Court they use

But you are again not listening to anything that is being said to you. There were many valid reasons for why he should be tried in an international court. Your response to those reasons is that America's laws are the only ones that matter so Saddam should get the death penalty and needs to be tried in Iraq.

Somebody else was supplying Saddam with massive amounts of weaponry. Probably many of the nations that are calling out America. Nations like Russia, Germany, and France. Why all the focus on America when these nations performed just as badly, if not worse. Hell, even after UN sanctions they sold Saddam weaponry. Where is the outrage over that? I sense international (internal as well) bias.

The difference is very clear; those countries are not hypocrites about it. Face it, Bush's main justification after WMDs for going into Iraq was that Saddam was a bad guy. That opinion is right but he based that opinion on something that happened 15 years ago, something we could have gotten him for in the first gulf war, and something that we had a hand in. Its hypocritical at best, criminal at worst.

How else would they learn law and how a court is run? Iraq has been under dictorial rule for decades. Its not like many (if any) Iraqis can just jump in as a judge without proper training.

But again, you are missing the point. The point is the US will pretty much control this trial.

Well, when China decides to **** up a few countries in Asia (possiblities: Taiwan, Japan, the Koreas) who do you think the world will turn to? The 'wait and see for 12 years' UN wont be much of a help. It will be America and NATO.

Do you think China would do something like that unless they felt threatened? My point was that if the US, the most powerful country in the world, doesn't play by the rules then why should China, the second most powerful country in the world, play by the rules. Again, this constant **** the world mentallity will bite us in the ass and the right wing will be to blame for it.

We are our own free, independent nation.

So was Iraq but that didn't stop us from going in there because Bush and the right wing didn't like their nation. And China, along with other countries, will start using that same mentallity. I love how you right wingers constantly trash the UN saying they wont do anything when it is the UN's rules you used as justification for going in to Iraq.

Do you honestly think its a good thing for there to be no international regulations and America should just police the world? Remember what your hero Bush said in a 2000 debate with Al Gore:

BUSH: It really depends upon how (the) nation conducts itself in foreign policy. If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us. If we're a humble nation, but strong, they'll welcome us. And our nation stands alone right now in the world in terms of power. And that's why we've got to be humble and yet project strength in a way that promotes freedom. So I don't think they ought to look at us in any way other than what we are. We're a freedom-loving nation. And if we're an arrogant nation, they'll view us that way, but if we're a humble nation, they'll respect us.

 

[seinfeldrules]

There were many valid reasons for why he should be tried in an international court. Your response to those reasons is that America's laws are the only ones that matter so Saddam should get the death penalty and needs to be tried in Iraq.

There are also many reasons why he should be tried in Iraq. Mainly because he was the dictator of that country for decades and forced the Iraqi people to live under his iron will.

he difference is very clear; those countries are not hypocrites about it. Face it, Bush's main justification after WMDs for going into Iraq was that Saddam was a bad guy. That opinion is right but he based that opinion on something that happened 15 years ago, something we could have gotten him for in the first gulf war, and something that we had a hand in. Its hypocritical at best, criminal at worst.

Where is the outrage!? They sold him just as many if not more weaponry than the US. They should have cleaned up their mess, not made us do it. Even AFTER the UN sanctions they sold him weapons! It is incredulous that you merely look over that fact. There is clearly an American bias on this board, as well as in the international community. You REFUSE to look at anyone other than the US and it is disgusting.

Do you think China would do something like that unless they felt threatened?

Possibly yes. You cannot know the future anymore than I can.

I love how you right wingers constantly trash the UN saying they wont do anything when it is the UN's rules you used as justification for going in to Iraq.

We shouldnt have used the UN's rules. We should have outlined the benefits of removing Saddam and the threat he posed to the free world. No need for the UN.

Do you honestly think its a good thing for there to be no international regulations and America should just police the world?

The world put America as the their police over the last 40 years, nobody else is/was willing to do the job.

So was Iraq but that didn't stop us from going in there because Bush and the right wing didn't like their nation.

Might of had something to do with the fact that he posed an international threat and was one of the worst dictators of our time.

 

[CptStern]

There are also many reasons why he should be tried in Iraq. Mainly because he was the dictator of that country for decades and forced the Iraqi people to live under his iron will.

and iranians and kurds and kuwaitees ...should they not get their chance at getting justice?

Where is the outrage!? They sold him just as many if not more weaponry than the US. They should have cleaned up their mess, not made us do it. Even AFTER the UN sanctions they sold him weapons! It is incredulous that you merely look over that fact. There is clearly an American bias on this board, as well as in the international community. You REFUSE to look at anyone other than the US and it is disgusting.

the difference is that you openly supported saddam when he was using chemical weapons on civilians ...yet when it suited your purpose you turned on him for those very reasons .....hypocritical to say the least

We shouldnt have used the UN's rules. We should have outlined the benefits of removing Saddam and the threat he posed to the free world. No need for the UN.

I dont think you know what the UN is ...the US signed the UN charter (loosly based on the bill of rights) and that states:

"Article 42 does not allow individual member states to make the determination that military force may be used; it requires the UN security council to make that determination."


you created these laws, you just dont want to have to abide by them ...hypocritical to say the least

The world put America as the their police over the last 40 years, nobody else is/was willing to do the job.

excuse me? since when? the US is a self elected police force ...we dont ask/want the kind of help you're willing to give

Might of had something to do with the fact that he posed an international threat and was one of the worst dictators of our time.

ummm no, you didnt care when he was doing his worst ...why do you now?

and he did not pose an international threat ...even you knew that

 

[seinfeldrules]

and iranians and kurds and kuwaitees ...should they not get their chance at getting justice?

Iraq will do the job for them. You just dont want the death penalty brought in. I actually wouldnt mind if he is tried in all countries. It happens in America from time to time (obviously referring to states).

the difference is that you openly supported saddam when he was using chemical weapons on civilians

So did the other nations which sold him 99% of his weaponry! Where is the outrage Stern? Are you so anti-American that you cannot fault anyone BUT America?! What about France, Germany, and Russia which sold weapons even AFTER the UN sanctions? You dont care about them becuase they dont start in 'A' and end in 'a'

I dont think you know what the UN is ...the US signed the UN charter (loosly based on the bill of rights) and that states

I dont think we counted on the UN becoming the corrupt body that it currently is.

the US is a self elected police force ...we dont ask/want the kind of help you're willing to give

Pshhh, yes you did. It started in WWII and has continued ever since. Without our assistance to Europe during the Cold War most of the world would be speaking a regionalized version of Russia right about now. We had to stop the threat because nobody else would. We were the main body in Korea. We were the main force behind freeing Kuwait. Of course we had LOADS of help, but I dont think anyone would deny that the US played the largest role.

and he did not pose an international threat ...even you knew that

He had already taken place in 2 wars (both started by him I believe) and had launched 40 missles at Israel. That is a threat.

 

[jabberwock95]

What is it with you and your death penalty?

The fact that other countries sold Saddam weapons is awful yes, but the fact that the American government reversed its opinion on Saddam in a microsecond is the reason we call it hypocritical.

And saying the UN is corrupt is not an excuse for flagrantly breaking the most important rules. Is 'the government is corrupt' a good defense for murder?

And really, no-one asked America to invade Iraq, if the government wants to 'police the world' they can stay in their own playground.

 

[CptStern]

Iraq will do the job for them. You just dont want the death penalty brought in. I actually wouldnt mind if he is tried in all countries. It happens in America from time to time (obviously referring to states).

nope, I want him to get a fair trial for every murder he committed ..and you're right I am against the death penalty ...a date with a syringe is too good for him

So did the other nations which sold him 99% of his weaponry! Where is the outrage Stern? Are you so anti-American that you cannot fault anyone BUT America?! What about France, Germany, and Russia which sold weapons even AFTER the UN sanctions? You dont care about them becuase they dont start in 'A' and end in 'a'

dear god you are such a half-wit, why must I regurgitate the same crap over and over again? I'll tell you why ...CUZ YOU DIDNT READ THE FREAKIN ARTICLE

I've posted these documents hundreds of times


"The U.S., having decided that an Iranian victory would not serve its interests, began supporting Iraq: measures already underway to upgrade U.S.-Iraq relations were accelerated, high-level officials exchanged visits, and in February 1982 the State Department removed Iraq from its list of states supporting international terrorism.

Iraq received massive external financial support from the Gulf states, and assistance through loan programs from the U.S. The White House and State Department pressured the Export-Import Bank to provide Iraq with financing, to enhance its credit standing and enable it to obtain loans from other international financial institutions. The U.S. Agriculture Department provided taxpayer-guaranteed loans for purchases of American commodities, to the satisfaction of U.S. grain exporters.

The U.S. restored formal relations with Iraq in November 1984, but the U.S. had begun, several years earlier, to provide it with intelligence and military support (in secret and contrary to this country's official neutrality) in accordance with policy directives from President Ronald Reagan. These were prepared pursuant to his March 1982 National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM 4-82) asking for a review of U.S. policy toward the Middle East."

I dont think we counted on the UN becoming the corrupt body that it currently is.

you've led the corruption

Pshhh, yes you did. It started in WWII and has continued ever since. Without our assistance to Europe during the Cold War most of the world would be speaking a regionalized version of Russia right about now. We had to stop the threat because nobody else would. We were the main body in Korea. We were the main force behind freeing Kuwait. Of course we had LOADS of help, but I dont think anyone would deny that the US played the largest role.

Greece
Iran
Guatemala
North Vietnam
Hungary
Laos
Haiti
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
Congo
Brazil
Indonesia
Bolivia
Uruguay
Cambodia
Chile
Australia
Angola
Afghanistan
El Salvador
Nicaragua
Honduras
Panama


would disagree with you

 

[seinfeldrules]

The fact that other countries sold Saddam weapons is awful yes, but the fact that the American government reversed its opinion on Saddam in a microsecond is the reason we call it hypocritical.

Are you saying that we should have remained friends with him? That is outrageous! I fault those countries for remaining his friends, and I cannot believe you dont!


Furthermore, I will not waste my time on someone with so little class as CptStern. You've let your little group of followers really get to your head.

 

[CptStern]

bah what cowardly way to say:

"I dont have answers stern"

 

[seinfeldrules]

bah what cowardly way to say:

Why would you want to debate with a 'half-wit' anyways. Get off the horse stern, you've riden it long enough.

 

[CptStern]

riding a horse ...in a city of 4.5 million? what would the neighbours say when they catch Ol' Gluestik munching on their petunias? tarnations I better get me a barn!

 

[seinfeldrules]

Oh man, what comedy! If only I was 5 again...

 

[CptStern]

...you'd want your juice

 

[jabberwock95]

Are you saying that we should have remained friends with him? That is outrageous! I fault those countries for remaining his friends, and I cannot believe you dont!

Hypocrisy - The act of pretending to have beliefs, virtues and feelings that one does not truly possess.

I did not say the US government should have remained friends with Saddam, I said it was hypocritical to be friends with him in the first place! The US did not care about any deaths while Saddam was their ally, so it is hypocritical for them to suggest that is the reason they went to war now.

Furthermore, I will not waste my time on someone with so little class as CptStern. You've let your little group of followers really get to your head.

CptStern, you're the best person in the world. And i'm ready to shave my head and give you my worldly belongings.

 

[CptStern]

thank you Brother Jabberwock ...please step into the re-education room and be prepared to be initiated into the Brotherhood of Stern