Should Saddam be freed? - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 10-06-2004, 05:16 PM   #16
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,237
Local Time: 12:32 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by FullonEdge2
I would like to ask this: What would Democrats propose we do with Saddam if they didn't feel it necessary to go to war with him?

All talk, no action? Just look away while horrible atrocities are committed?

Just wondering...
If you're going to play the "but he's a bad, bad man who killed his people" card as reason enough, then we need to be willing (as a nation and administration) to go into other places in the world to root out ruthless dictators and murderers. Or take on problems that are causing more deaths. The Sudan and the AIDS crisis in Africa are two that immediately come to mind, and yet the US has spent over 8 times as much money on Iraq as on the AIDS crisis. If we're going to use the bad man approach, we need to be just as firm with other dictators and crimes against humanity around the world, and the problem is we're not doing that. And sadly, the US has historically even supported brutal dictators (including Saddam) when it suited their interests. When the Bush administration talks about Saddam having used weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors and his people, they are right. But what they fail to mention is that in some cases the US aided Saddam in the creation of WMDs and essentially looked the other way as Saddam used them. Heck, Donald Rumsfeld seemed to rather like Saddam back in the day...

To answer the original posted question. I don't think war in Iraq would be justified solely under the pretense of crimes against humanity, unless that charge was agreed upon by the world - UN, NATO, the international court, etc. That said, we did go into Iraq, and we did capture a man who has committed crimes against humanity, and given that opportunity, I do think he should stand trial in either international court or the court under the new government of Iraq for his crimes. Much in the same way that Pinochet is now facing probable trial (depending on his health). A war is not needed to recognize his faults, but it should be a global effort (as well as an effort among Iraqis) to bring him to trial, and not one nation deciding to take out a dictator. If the crimes are deemed great enough and the world are convinced that his crimes are great enough to warrant capture and prosecution, then possible war or "military action" would be justifiable. But to go into Iraq on the idea that there were stockpiles of WMDs when that in fact was not true was wrong, but we can't go back now.

Let me be clear, I'd like to see the US and the world act more aggressively against all mass murderers and perpetrators of crimes against humanity. I think Saddam deserves to sit in a cell for a long time for his crimes. But the way we went about getting him was wrong.
__________________

__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 10-06-2004, 06:15 PM   #17
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 10:32 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep



would you advocate a pardon for osama?

He is enemy number one.



Much like Moammar Khadafi was in the 80s.
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
Old 10-06-2004, 06:36 PM   #18
Blue Crack Addict
 
DaveC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: illegitimi non carborundum
Posts: 17,410
Local Time: 01:32 AM
Sure, release Saddam.

And while we're at it, how about releasing Slobodan Milosevic! They can go be playmates!

Good lord that just reminded me of The Fletcher Memorial Home.
__________________
DaveC is offline  
Old 10-06-2004, 06:51 PM   #19
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 11:32 PM
what about my counseling suggestion?
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 10-06-2004, 07:05 PM   #20
Refugee
 
FullonEdge2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,314
Local Time: 06:32 AM
Diemen,

I agree with you that if the U.S. takes action against Saddam it should also be proactive in aiding Africa and other situations (even though I have a tendency to wish America was still isolationist). Simply stated, our nation is at a point in its history where it has the capabilities to help in other world situations. But just because the U.S. is not aiding those other situations as much as we would maybe like, would you still turn your head and pretend nothing is happening in Iraq?

And this in reply to your call for U.N. support for any action the U.S. takes: This may hurt, but it seems like the U.N. is corrupt. Sadly, I doubt any "league of nations" will ever work perfectly. How else can you explain the U.N. failing to take aggressive action against Iraq? Some nations--I'll mention France and Germany--are so biased against the U.S. that they'll do anything to keep any U.S. instigated mandates from taking any real effect. The reason for this, I think, is that they're afraid of Bush. They know that they can play Kerry like a...a...fiddlestick. It's all about power.

Also, I would like to know specifics regarding the U.S. helping Iraq to develop WMDs. I would be shocked if you could prove that statement.

And I just want to say this: Despite all the comments like "We've only made the world more dangerous by going into Iraq" I definitely feel safer. I truly believe that had we looked the other way over terrorist groups and such for a matter of years longer, something much scarier than 911 would have happened. So I guess even in that respect, I'm still glad we went into Iraq.
__________________
FullonEdge2 is offline  
Old 10-06-2004, 08:33 PM   #21
New Yorker
 
sharky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,637
Local Time: 01:32 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by FullonEdge2
And this in reply to your call for U.N. support for any action the U.S. takes: This may hurt, but it seems like the U.N. is corrupt. Sadly, I doubt any "league of nations" will ever work perfectly. How else can you explain the U.N. failing to take aggressive action against Iraq? Some nations--I'll mention France and Germany--are so biased against the U.S. that they'll do anything to keep any U.S. instigated mandates from taking any real effect. The reason for this, I think, is that they're afraid of Bush. They know that they can play Kerry like a...a...fiddlestick. It's all about power.
.....
And I just want to say this: Despite all the comments like "We've only made the world more dangerous by going into Iraq" I definitely feel safer. I truly believe that had we looked the other way over terrorist groups and such for a matter of years longer, something much scarier than 911 would have happened. So I guess even in that respect, I'm still glad we went into Iraq.
First, unlike the U.S. president, the U.N. is not a bunch of war mongers. They have to weigh the opinions of ALL members including those that want to attack a country and those that have been attacked. As for Iraq, I feel less safer now. We don't have control of Iraq and it's become a safe haven for terrorists.

Diemen was right. If we're going to go after people because they violated human rights we should be going after Sudan, China etc. But Sudan doesn't have oil and we can outsource work to China. So hey Iraq! The war cannot be solely justified by putting Saddam behind bars but with all the killings, maimings and beheadings, its the only good thing that's going to come out of this quagmire.
__________________
sharky is offline  
Old 10-06-2004, 10:02 PM   #22
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 12:32 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by FullonEdge2



No, I don't believe that's the reason we went into Iraq. The possibility was one of the many reasons that were seemingly piling up. Besides WMDs, there were supposed connections with Osama, crimes against humanity, and tension following 911.
Well then please get with the rest of those that supported the war and come up with a clear reason why. There are many in here who support this war but would not stand for your answer. This is the reason so many did not favor this war, because there was no clear cut reason as to why Iraq rather than any other country commiting crimes against humanity.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 10-06-2004, 10:08 PM   #23
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,684
Local Time: 12:32 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by MaxFisher


All I was saying is that if the war was injust, then how can keeping Saddam a prisoner be justified?
If you say that it is for human rights violations then was going to war worth it even with no WMDs?
Do you not see that this world is made up of grays? By your logic we should invade a lot of countries. By your logic we could invade almost anywhere as long as we showed human rights violations afterwards...which is almost anywhere. Someone could invade the US and prove human rights violations, don't kid yourself. None of this means I wish to see Saddam free, but there are a lot of people including people here in the US that I don't want to see free, it doesn't mean it's time to kill and sacrifice our loved ones for it.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 10-06-2004, 10:35 PM   #24
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 06:32 AM
It's true I opposed the invasion of Iraq, but not because I liked Saddam. I don't support freeing him after what's been said and done.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 10-07-2004, 12:00 AM   #25
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Popmartijn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 32,543
Local Time: 07:32 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Max raises an interesting point. What standard of US jurisprudence should be applied, in a consistent fashion, in this case, if at all?
I don't think US jurisprudence should be applicable at all. Saddam has been handed over to the Iraqi's and if they want to try him, so it will be done according to Iraqi law. How that law looks like and what the consequences are, I don't know.

And to go back to the first post, yes I think that Saddam is imprisoned unfairly based on the three accusations you posted (the reasons the US wanted to convince everyone they should go to war with Iraw NOW!). However, as some have pointed out in this thread, he has committed some real crimes (the human rights argument) and should be tried for that. I don't know the exact details in law, but I think it isn't considered a problem if you arrest somebody on false accusations but then find out that the person has committed some other crimes.

C ya!

Marty
__________________
Popmartijn is offline  
Old 10-07-2004, 12:14 AM   #26
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Song of the week "sentimental" by Porcupine Tree
Posts: 3,854
Local Time: 06:32 AM
Re: Should Saddam be freed?

Quote:
Originally posted by MaxFisher
Lets assume the following things
1. Iraq had NO WMDs.
2. There was NO Iraq - Osama connection.
3. There was NO Iraq-911 connection.

These are not assumptions .. these are facts... I knew this before the war started.


Yet I am glad Saddam is in jail because he was a potential threat in future..

There is NO question of freeing him
__________________
AcrobatMan is offline  
Old 10-07-2004, 12:39 AM   #27
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,237
Local Time: 12:32 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by FullonEdge2
Diemen,

I agree with you that if the U.S. takes action against Saddam it should also be proactive in aiding Africa and other situations (even though I have a tendency to wish America was still isolationist). Simply stated, our nation is at a point in its history where it has the capabilities to help in other world situations. But just because the U.S. is not aiding those other situations as much as we would maybe like, would you still turn your head and pretend nothing is happening in Iraq?
No, I don't advocate looking the other way. What I do advocate, however, is looking first at the bigger problems. Saddam was not an immediate threat. The report released today by Charles Duelfer confirms what David Kay reported, that there were no stockpiles of WMDs in Iraq at the time of our invasion, there is no indication that stockpiles will be found, and more importantly, that the connection between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda is extremely weak at best.

If we really want to root out terrorism, we have to go after the sources beyond just the terrorists. We have to go after the conditions that might breed such contempt for human life and Western civilization. We have to go after poverty. Can you imagine the type of impact and respect the US would've gained if we committed $120 billion (Cheney's rather conservative estimate of Iraq costs to date) to the AIDS crisis and overall poverty in Africa? The rest of the world would be praising our humanitarianism and heroism in really making a bold move in the fight for equality and freedom.

Quote:
And this in reply to your call for U.N. support for any action the U.S. takes: This may hurt, but it seems like the U.N. is corrupt. Sadly, I doubt any "league of nations" will ever work perfectly. How else can you explain the U.N. failing to take aggressive action against Iraq? Some nations--I'll mention France and Germany--are so biased against the U.S. that they'll do anything to keep any U.S. instigated mandates from taking any real effect. The reason for this, I think, is that they're afraid of Bush. They know that they can play Kerry like a...a...fiddlestick. It's all about power.
I knew this would be coming. And you are right in stating that the UN is not perfect and corruption is present. The same can be said of the US government and the current administration (though the extent can be argued). However, I would not be so quick to dismiss the rest of the world. Yes, we must always keep our interests in mind, but we cannot win this fight alone. And to go into a war unilaterally when it's justification is so hotly contested (and as it turned out, rightfully so) is not going to win friends. To not admit fault when errors have clearly been made is not going to win friends.

Quote:
Also, I would like to know specifics regarding the U.S. helping Iraq to develop WMDs. I would be shocked if you could prove that statement.
A 1994 US Senate Report entitled "U.S. Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual Use Exports to Iraq and their possible impact on health consequences of the Gulf War" lists some of the chemical agents the US government allowed US corporations to sell to Saddam between 1985 and 1990. Among the list:

•Bacillus Anthracis, aka Anthrax
•Clostridium Botulinum - causes dizziness, vomiting, constipation, paralysis of throat muscles, often fatal
•Histoplama Capsulatum - symptoms similar to tuberculosis
•Brucella Melitensis - causes chronic fatigue, nausea, damage to major organs
•Clostridium Perfringens - causes gas gangrene
•Eschrichia coli (E. coli)

Now you might remember the Iran-Iraq War, and the US was firmly on Iraq's side. Not only did they provide them with agents necessary to create chemical weapons, they provided military intelligence and "closely moniter[ed] third-country arms sales to Iraq to make sure that Iraq had the military weaponry required." That quote is from a sworn affidavit from Howard Teicher, a member of Reagan's National Security Council and coauthor of a national security directive under Reagan that basically stated that Iraq's victory in the Iran-Iraq war was crucial and the US would do everything in it's "legal" power to ensure that outcome. Separate reports in the New York Times and Washington Post also corroborate this story. Now tell me, if you give someone chemical agents when they're at war, and then give them military intelligence on troop movements to help their side win, wouldn't you say that's both helping in the creation and use of WMDs?

Quote:
And I just want to say this: Despite all the comments like "We've only made the world more dangerous by going into Iraq" I definitely feel safer. I truly believe that had we looked the other way over terrorist groups and such for a matter of years longer, something much scarier than 911 would have happened. So I guess even in that respect, I'm still glad we went into Iraq.
I'm glad you feel safer. I don't. Iraq is in chaos. Car bombings, suicide attacks, kidnappings and beheadings, large segments of the nation controlled by insurgents, and violence escalating, not decreasing. What was once a secular nation with a dictator who sought power and Glory for himself has become a breeding ground for Islamic extremism, and a rally cry to terrorists everywhere. Add to that the shame of Abu Ghraib, and the fact the top officials knew about it for nearly 4 months and did nothing until the media caught wind of it. Not only did we torture them, we chose to torture them in a way that was the most humiliating for their culture, by stripping them naked, forcing them to mimic homosexual acts while American men and women aped in front of the camera. Nice way to win the hearts and minds. And let me repeat that it has been reported that top officials in the administration knew about this and sat on it until the media caught wind.

On top of that, we've had numerous warnings that terrorists are planning an attack and that an attack may happen at virtually any time, and then add the even more heinous insinuation by Cheney that voting for Kerry will cause another attack, and yeah, I'm not feeling all that safe.
__________________
Diemen is offline  
Old 10-07-2004, 12:46 AM   #28
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London/Sydney
Posts: 6,608
Local Time: 07:32 AM
What the fuck is with anti war = pro Saddam? It really, really angers me.

The debate never has been about "What kind of person is Saddam? Would Iraq be better off without him?" Of COURSE the answers to that are "Spawn of Satan" and "Yes. Definitely."

There are very few people in the world who would not like to see every dictator, despot etc rounded up, tried, have the book thrown at them and left to rot in prison till the day they die.

There are very few people in the world who would not like to see those countries under a democratic, stable, free government and leader.

Who these people are and whether or not their country would be better off with or without them is NOT the debate.

The debate is how, when and why.

This simplistic black & white shit is really annoying. The situation is 'grey' and a lot of peoples opinions are as well.

Saddam can rot in prison and then hell for all I care. I'm glad that he will. I'm glad that he is not running Iraq anymore. But I am opposed to the war there. Confusing?
__________________
Earnie Shavers is offline  
Old 10-07-2004, 01:08 AM   #29
Refugee
 
Klaus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: on a one of these small green spots at that blue planet at the end of the milky way
Posts: 2,432
Local Time: 07:32 AM
Should Saddam be freed?
no!
Does this justify the war against Iraq, the faked documents of the British government and the (ongoing) missleading of the US citizens by their administration by linking Saddam to 9/11 and to al-quaida?
no!
__________________
Klaus is offline  
Old 10-07-2004, 01:15 AM   #30
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 04:32 PM
British Government - faked documents?

If you are refering to the Niger Uranium documents that were fakes they were used by the CIA, the British on the other hand did not base that link on said fake documents therefore the link was credible and stands to this day as an example of the Iraqi regime preparing itself for when the sanctions were lifted.

And the 9.11 linkage - I am sick of people saying that the Bush administration said that Saddam was involved in 9.11 - he did not. Anybody with one eye on whats going on could see that the administration were careful not to say so explicitly.

Anyway Saddam will be afforded Iraqi justice for all those innocents murdered by the regime. He will be killed - the trial is a formality to afford documentation to the dead, so that nobody ever forgets the evil that the regime comitted, and I will not shed a tear when it happens.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com