|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jan 14, 2007 12:08:51 GMT -4
What do you think about the point the cartoon makes? I already told you. I think it's based on the creator's lack of knowledge about how the trials work, and therefore it's point is flawed. The point it is trying to make is that Saddam was executed for lesser crimes and that any of crimes that involved the American government will be ignored. But like I said before, the trials have not ended just because Saddam is dead. The trials will continue and evidence will be presented, and if Saddam hadn't been executed this time he likely would be for the other crimes he was charged with. You can only hang him once. If the first trial resulted in a death sentence then it doesn't matter if he is found guilty for a thousand other crimes.
|
|
david
Venus
Account Disabled
Posts: 67
|
Post by david on Jan 15, 2007 13:34:06 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 15, 2007 17:33:44 GMT -4
Saddam was hanged for his ordering the round up and execution of hundreds (if not thousands) of people in a town where a failed assassination attempt had occured. This was just one of his crimes. The court that tried him was Iraqi, and the justice system under which he was tried was Iraqi (in a way it's a shame the US didn't take a more active role, the whole thing might have been less of a debarcle.) He wasn't executed because of the US, he was executed because he ordered murders and tortures by the thousand and when they had the chance to, the people that he did it too found him guilty and returned the favour. (I'd suggest that he was lucky that he didn't get the same form of execution he imposed on others, I'm sure he wouldn't have looked anywhere near as dignified as he went feet first through a plastics shredder.)
|
|
david
Venus
Account Disabled
Posts: 67
|
Post by david on Jan 25, 2007 10:17:00 GMT -4
Iraq has an American puppet government now which takes orders from the US. It looks better that way. michaelparenti.org/Imperialism101.html(excerpt) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sometimes imperial domination is explained as arising from an innate desire for domination and expansion, a "territorial imperative." In fact, territorial imperialism is no longer the prevailing mode. Compared to the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, when the European powers carved up the world among themselves, today there is almost no colonial dominion left. Colonel Blimp is dead and buried, replaced by men in business suits. Rather than being directly colonized by the imperial power, the weaker countries have been granted the trappings of sovereignty—while Western finance capital retains control of the lion's share of their profitable resources. This relationship has gone under various names: "informal empire," "colonialism without colonies," "neocolonialism," and "neoimperialism." --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This has been standard procedure for a long time.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 25, 2007 11:51:23 GMT -4
So your argument is that the Iraqi people were happier when they were being fed head first into plastic shredders, when the rape chambers were full, the oil profits went to extravagent palaces, and the Kurds were freely gassed?
|
|
rocky
Earth
BANNED
Posts: 212
|
Post by rocky on Jan 25, 2007 15:57:59 GMT -4
It sounds like you haven't read the articles or seen the videos in the first post of this thread. I made all of this very clear at the beginning.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 25, 2007 16:04:15 GMT -4
I'm not going to read the articles and/or watch the videos either. I prefer to discuss things in internet forums with written posts, not links to other locations. If you can't make an argument yourself, in your own words, I don't think you should be making an argument.
|
|
|
Post by smb on Jan 26, 2007 7:49:52 GMT -4
Jason wrote: To me, any argument that the US aided or abetted Saddam to begin with is a strong argument that we should be there now trying to fix the mess we are in part responsible for
Would you also trust an alcoholic, who previously raided the storeroom, to go back in and help clean up the mess?
President Bush in 2002, apologising for past behaviour of the kind detailed above, announced that we should no longer "tolerate" doctorial regimes. We can't endure the situation any longer. For the good of America and the world, a new strategy was needed. This is sometimes called the 'change of course' doctrine.
But how serious was the Bush gang, and what steps have you taken to test their level of commitment? The United States did a whole lot more than merely "tolerate" doctorial regimes -- they helped many into power; armed and sustained them. So if one cannot honestly face up to the reality of ones past, then how can one honestly move forward?
When will the United States push for sweeping change in Saudi Arabia and other friendly fiefdoms? Gosh, hasn't King Abdullah invited President Bush to a private stoning? How insensitive of him. Perhaps Bush would prefer to see someone having their hands, feet or head chopped off? Or would that spoil his dinner? Why is the U.S. government spending millions of dollars trying to undermine democratically elected governments in South America?
How can you take the Bush administration's democracy promotion seriously when they have demonstrated their contempt for it, both at home and abroad? Simply not serious.
|
|
|
Post by smb on Jan 26, 2007 7:59:08 GMT -4
Here is another member of the current administration whose heart yearns for deep universal democracy. "The good Lord didn't see fit to put oil and gas only where there are democratically elected regimes friendly to the United States. Occasionally we have to operate in places where, all things considered, one would not normally choose to go. But, we go where the business is." — Dick Cheney, Cato Institute, June 23, 1998 "Oil remains fundamentally a government business. While many regions of the world offer great oil opportunities, the Middle East with two thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies, even though companies are anxious for greeter access there, progress continues to be slow." — Dick Cheney, London Institute of Petroleum, 1999 And don't get me started on Rumsfeld.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 26, 2007 12:14:15 GMT -4
Would you also trust an alcoholic, who previously raided the storeroom, to go back in and help clean up the mess? To make your analogy complete, the alcoholic would have to have had a serious, life changing event (9/11), resolved to sober up (the President's resolve to combat terror-sponsoring regimes), be the only one with the ability and motive to clean up the mess, and the store room has to have the possibility of starting a fire and burning up the entire house that the alcoholic lives in if it isn't cleaned up. Under those circumstances yes, I would give him the chance to clean up his mess. But the analogy fails anyway. There is no authority standing over the U.S. allowing us clean up our mess - we are doing it out of a sense of responsibility to those who will be harmed if we do nothing - the citizens of other nations as well as our own. Perhaps when the more immediate problems of Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, and North Korea are dealt with? The US has enough on its plate at the moment that it doesn't need a second helping. Are you referring to Venezuela? Chavez may have been elected originally, but his government is not a democracy.
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jan 26, 2007 14:52:24 GMT -4
Once again with the links and quotes David-Rocky. Do you know how to think, to process information, to reason? Or do you simply involuntarily puke up whatever bile you find appealing? What do I think? I think you need to widen your sources, perhaps visit Iraq, maybe work there, find out that, why yes, some good things have happened there...but it will all be over soon, no worries mate ('cept maybe for the regular Iraqi citizen, but hey, we put the smackdown on Bush, they're just collateral damage). Like I said, you don't want to know what I think of "your" opinions...if you want to know why Saddam attacked Iran, it's in all the history texts...it was another territorial dispute, just like with Kuwait. You just haven't bothered to look for the answer, that's called lazy, and the result, ignorance. Just like all your other regurgitations. OK, I'm done...telling you what I think of your use of others' opinions. Jeesh....
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on Jan 26, 2007 14:56:29 GMT -4
"But why is the rum gone?" Captain Jack Sparrow
|
|
|
Post by scooter on Jan 26, 2007 15:39:57 GMT -4
Thanks, Apollo...I needed that
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 26, 2007 20:54:04 GMT -4
I think you mean "dictatorial," SMB.
|
|
|
Post by smb on Jan 27, 2007 0:23:36 GMT -4
You had better shut your mouth, or it's the human shredder with you! ;D
|
|