Should Saddam be freed? - 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, 02:22 PM   #1
War Child
 
MaxFisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 776
Local Time: 04:16 AM
Should Saddam be freed?

Lets assume the following things anti-war advocates would have us believe are in fact true...

1. Iraq had NO WMDs.
2. There was NO Iraq - Osama connection.
3. There was NO Iraq-911 connection.

If so, going to war was completely unjust and Saddam is being imprisoned unfairly. The logical conclusion would be to free Saddam. How can we continue to hold him as a prisoner of war if the reasons for going to war were grounded in error?

Why aren't the anti-war advocates calling for him to be freed?
__________________

MaxFisher is offline  
Old 10-06-2004, 02:31 PM   #2
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 09:16 PM
umm cuz saddam was a personified weapon of massive human destruction?

u tell me.

db9
__________________

diamond is offline  
Old 10-06-2004, 02:34 PM   #3
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,600
Local Time: 08:16 PM
no

John Walker should, though.
deep is offline  
Old 10-06-2004, 02:34 PM   #4
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,228
Local Time: 10:16 PM
Re: Should Saddam be freed?

Quote:
Originally posted by MaxFisher
Lets assume the following things anti-war advocates would have us believe are in fact true...

1. Iraq had NO WMDs.
2. There was NO Iraq - Osama connection.
3. There was NO Iraq-911 connection.

If so, going to war was completely unjust and Saddam is being imprisoned unfairly. The logical conclusion would be to free Saddam. How can we continue to hold him as a prisoner of war if the reasons for going to war were grounded in error?

Why aren't the anti-war advocates calling for him to be freed?
Oh it must be nice to live in a world where everything is so simplified.
BVS is offline  
Old 10-06-2004, 02:49 PM   #5
War Child
 
MaxFisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 776
Local Time: 04:16 AM
I am in no way advocating Saddam's release. I am staunch republican. My point is that I think it is logically inconsistent for liberals to condemn the war because it was based on lies and yet praise the capture and imprisonment of Saddam.
MaxFisher is offline  
Old 10-06-2004, 02:51 PM   #6
The Fly
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 49
Local Time: 04:16 AM
Max,
would you consider counseling for saddam?

db9
thane is offline  
Old 10-06-2004, 02:56 PM   #7
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,600
Local Time: 08:16 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by MaxFisher
I am in no way advocating Saddam's release.

would you advocate a pardon for osama?
deep is offline  
Old 10-06-2004, 03:07 PM   #8
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,228
Local Time: 10:16 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by MaxFisher
I am in no way advocating Saddam's release. I am staunch republican. My point is that I think it is logically inconsistent for liberals to condemn the war because it was based on lies and yet praise the capture and imprisonment of Saddam.
So staunch Republicans = wanting Saddam captured.

Democrat = Wanting Saddam free.

Your logic is too simple, but consistantly simple with this administrations, so I'll give you points for loyalty.

I guess the end justifies the means?
BVS is offline  
Old 10-06-2004, 03:31 PM   #9
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 08:16 PM
Max raises an interesting point. What standard of US jurisprudence should be applied, in a consistent fashion, in this case, if at all?
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 10-06-2004, 03:32 PM   #10
New Yorker
 
sharky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 2,637
Local Time: 12:16 AM
Saddam is being charged with human rights violations -- killing his own people and such. He was a bad man, no one will deny, and since we have captured him, we should put him away and start fresh.

People are anti-war not because we like Saddam but because we like our troops, at least that's why in my case. They didn't have WMDs, we don't have an exit strategy. We went in because we could. It's wrong. I don't want our troops there. I want them in Afghanistan. Why are we in Iraq yet using warloads to find bin Laden? Why didn't we support the Kurds in '91 to overthrow the government? Hm...look no further than a book by former President Bush for that answer.
sharky is offline  
Old 10-06-2004, 03:42 PM   #11
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,600
Local Time: 08:16 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by sharky
we don't have an exit strategy.
This is no accident.


This is no oversight.
deep is offline  
Old 10-06-2004, 03:47 PM   #12
Refugee
 
FullonEdge2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,314
Local Time: 04:16 AM
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...
FullonEdge2 is offline  
Old 10-06-2004, 03:53 PM   #13
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 41,228
Local Time: 10:16 PM
We went in because of WMD's am I wrong? Why isn't he being charged for having WMD's? Where exactly are the inconsistancies? Everyone take a look in the mirror before they start pointing fingers.
BVS is offline  
Old 10-06-2004, 03:55 PM   #14
War Child
 
MaxFisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 776
Local Time: 04:16 AM
Thanks nbcrusader for understanding my point.

Let me repeat that I hate Saddam and I am glad he was captured. I support the troops, etc.

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?

And, no, bonovoxsupastar, I don't think democrat equals saddam free. I just was saying that I was a republican and supported the war because I was afraid my original post might be comming off like I was really in favor of freeing Saddam.
MaxFisher is offline  
Old 10-06-2004, 04:03 PM   #15
Refugee
 
FullonEdge2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,314
Local Time: 04:16 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
We went in because of WMD's am I wrong? Why isn't he being charged for having WMD's? Where exactly are the inconsistancies? Everyone take a look in the mirror before they start pointing fingers.

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.
FullonEdge2 is offline  
Old 10-06-2004, 04:16 PM   #16
Resident Photo Buff
Forum Moderator
 
Diemen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Somewhere in middle America
Posts: 13,578
Local Time: 11:16 PM
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, 05:15 PM   #17
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,600
Local Time: 08:16 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, 05:36 PM   #18
Blue Crack Addict
 
DaveC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: mar-a-lago delenda est
Posts: 20,790
Local Time: 12:16 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 online now  
Old 10-06-2004, 05:51 PM   #19
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 09:16 PM
what about my counseling suggestion?
diamond is offline  
Old 10-06-2004, 06:05 PM   #20
Refugee
 
FullonEdge2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,314
Local Time: 04:16 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  
 

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 11:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com
×