Saddam Hussein arrested

[Alexander's Horse]

I got a lot of insight into this by going to the US.

[Ted Striker]

Well share it dammit

what kind of tease is that

[Alexander's Horse]

well your "news" is very patriotic

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by aaglo
On a sidenote: the capture of saddam does not change the fact that I still don't like G.W.Bush one bit. a piece of crap is still piece of crap, even if you fry it in oil and serve with bearnaisse dressing

, even when I am trying to erase the imagery from my head

[Imran Siddiqui]

Sorry not to chime in with other leftists on this one, but I wonder why he should be judged at the Hague.

He can't. What would he be charged under? Milosevic is only being tried at the Hague because of the ICTFY (International Criminal Tribunal of the Former Yugoslavia). The ICC can't try him, because he crimes were before the signing of the Rome Statute (it is only prospective, not to retroactive). You would have to create an International Criminal Tribunal of Iraq, and it'd be a waste of time to do it for one guy.

It'll have to be an Iraqi or US court.

[The Vagabond]

Congrats on getting him. But don't you guys think that showing him being inspected by the doctor (especially in his mouth) was a little bit indecent?

[aaglo]

"Before you buy a horse, you should check it's teeth"

Maybe, just maybe this is somehow a similar thing...?

[Alexander's Horse]

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Congrats on getting him. But don't you guys think that showing him being inspected by the doctor (especially in his mouth) was a little bit indecent?

Americans are queer for dental hygiene.

[Ned]

Imran, an Iraqi court will not have jurisdiction to try him under internation law.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Imran, an Iraqi court will not have jurisdiction to try him under internation law.

Why not? American courts have jurisdiction to try people under international law... why can't Iraqi courts have the same thing?

[Gatekeeper]

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
well your "news" is very patriotic

Bah. Tell that to the folks who march into the newsroom every week whining about how we're:

1. Not conservative enough.
2. Not liberal enough.
3. Not patriotic enough.
4. Too patriotic.
5. Corporate mouthpieces.
6. Etc.

Heck, we even have a guy who's put up a giant billboard in the city proclaiming our "lack" of interest in covering what he holds dear.

Surely, AH, you're not one of them, are you?

Gatekeeper

[aaglo]

Originally posted by Ned
Imran, an Iraqi court will not have jurisdiction to try him under internation law.

I assume you can prove your point...

[Imran Siddiqui]

I don't think he can, aaglo . After all, most international law disputes have been taken up by national courts.

[Gatekeeper]

Hmm ... it seems the insurgents aren't taking a break. Two car detonations have been reported in Baghdad — at least four dead, seven wounded, if memory serves correctly.

Gatekeeper

[Agathon]

Of course any worth this capture might have possibly had will be negated by the US authorized Kangaroo Court that will deal with him.

And did you know, Kaiser Bill used to eat babies?

[Winston]

Now there's a reaction that fully lives up to expectations.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Winston
Now there's a reaction that fully lives up to expectations.

Well, don't you think that anything less than an impartial international court would have the apparent legitimacy that the US desires so badly?

Whoops, dumb***k Bush nixed the ICC. This would be the perfect opportunity for him to reconsider. It would be a sachet of instant legitimacy and no one could complain.

There ain't no way that Saddam would not end up convicted and the thought of him cornholing Milosevic for the next ten years is one that has a strange whiff of justice around it.

But of course he won't because this is a Punch and Judy show for the cud chewing idiot voters.

[Winston]

Much as I thought, according to the Left there has to be something wrong even with Saddam's capture and coming trial. And it has to somehow involve how stupid President Bush is and how illegitimate the whole liberation of Iraq was.

It'll take some serious twisting of facts and motives, and much deliberation during sleepless nights, but in the end, I'm sure the lefties will make it.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Winston

It'll take some serious twisting of facts and motives, and much deliberation during sleepless nights, but in the end, I'm sure the lefties will make it.

Um.. it ain't the left that's been doing this for the last year.

But hell, as long as you're "bringing democracy" to Iraq, you might as well bring "justice" along for the ride.

Nudge nudge,



Man, the first time I offer that pus-filled wart Bush a helpful PR suggestion his little minions take umbrage.

[Winston]

Originally posted by Agathon
But hell, as long as you're "bringing democracy" to Iraq, you might as well bring "justice" along for the ride.

Anything you say, Agathon. I know how important Democracy and Justice is to you Communists.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Winston

Anything you say, Agathon. I know how important Democracy and Justice is to you Communists.

Whatever, at least we don't keep bending over for Curious George.

And all you right wingers have shown how brainy you are. Since your evidence justifying the war consists of a decrepit crop sprayer and some satellite pictures of a couple of pizza trucks.

I mean, that's REAL proof.

[FrostyBoy]

After Saddam still saying that he has no WMD, how is this gonna effect the US and UK Government both saying that he had WMD?

Is the world just going to shrug and move on? Or are people going to stand up and tell Bush and Blair to leave? Have they not broken a U.N. rule? Does that not matter? Does the U.S. government really care about International laws? Does it just do what it feels like? Yknow, like Hitler?

[Winston]

Originally posted by Agathon
And all you right wingers have shown how brainy you are. Since your evidence justifying the war consists of a decrepit crop sprayer and some satellite pictures of a couple of pizza trucks.

My justification for supporting the war was that Iraq was ruled by a ruthless dictator who oppressed his own people, threatened his neighbours, awarded families of Palestinian suicide bombers and was a continued threat to peace, stability and economic development in the entire region. I wanted to see that changed.

Your justification for opposing the war seems to be that it was President Bush who initiated it.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Sn00py
After Saddam still saying that he has no WMD, how is this gonna effect the US and UK Government both saying that he had WMD?

Is the world just going to shrug and move on? Or are people going to stand up and tell Bush and Blair to leave? Have they not broken a U.N. rule? Does that not matter? Does the U.S. government really care about International laws? Does it just do what it feels like? Yknow, like Hitler?

I don't know. For the left it's pretty much a win-win situation.

Either they admit that they were FOS, or they keep lying and making themselves look even worse.

Or:

Either they hand over everything to the UN, or they stay and further enhance the desires of the other powers to form an anti-US bloc.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Winston
My justification for supporting the war was that Iraq was ruled by a ruthless dictator who oppressed his own people, threatened his neighbours, awarded families of Palestinian suicide bombers and was a continued threat to peace, stability and economic development in the entire region. I wanted to see that changed.

It was - he was already a paper tiger, as the war so admirably proved. He couldn't mount military operations against the Kurds let alone his neighbours.

The only real threat to peace and stability in the region would be a long Iraqui insurgence which would have a ripple effect on neighbouring countries.

There is no way Iraq will be a real democracy if the US has its way. They just want a friendlier dictator. Real democracy would either result in civil war or a pro-Iranian regime that would be sitting on the world's second largest oil reserves.

I can't believe that you believe that Bush and co. give a tinker's cuss about democracy in Iraq. And if you don't, why do you expect anything worthwhile out of it.

This is the same old crap of economic interests and power politics, nothing more. If there was a reasonable solution to this it would have been to let the inspectors finish their job, even though we all knew he had jack ****, and then to have dropped the sanctions with the understanding that if SH tried any **** against his own people, he would be bombed.

[Winston]

Judging from the reaction of the Iraqis over the weekend, they seem to see things a little differently.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Winston
Judging from the reaction of the Iraqis over the weekend, they seem to see things a little differently.

I don't disagree. Most Iraquis are not the Sunni minority who ran things.

But these people are sadly deluded if they believe that they are going to be allowed to determine their own future.

Look, it's not just Iraq. The main problem is that the world's superpower has decided to undermine what was a fragile international system and return us to the law of the jungle. That is something all right thinking people should view with trepidation.

No one who knew anything really believed the WoMD stuff. It's just a power grab. You would have thought that two world wars would have alerted people to the folly of behaving like this, but some people never learn.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Agathon
Look, it's not just Iraq. The main problem is that the world's superpower has decided to undermine what was a fragile international system and return us to the law of the jungle.

I disagree. I think the US wanted to act against a "rogue country", to have one more country follow the rules of the New World Order, or the Pax Americana depending how you name it.

The New World Order is shaking more and more, but it's not the US who outright attack it. On the contrary, they defend it, but with wrong ways.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Spiffor

I disagree. I think the US wanted to act against a "rogue country", to have one more country follow the rules of the New World Order, or the Pax Americana depending how you name it.

But there's no point in undermining an international order in the name of upholding it. And when the international order is "you must obey the rules, but we don't have to" there isn't much point in having rules.

The New World Order is shaking more and more, but it's not the US who outright attack it. On the contrary, they defend it, but with wrong ways.

At present, they defend their own narrow interests and damn anyone who disagrees. This is not smart diplomacy. Clinton was much cleverer about it. Bush and company live in fantasy land when it comes to diplomacy.

If you want a good read, read "Rogue Nation" by Clyde Prestowitz. He's an American Conservative and former employee and diplomat of the Reagan administration. I found precious little to disagree with in that book even though he would consider me a radical lefty and he is a dyed in the wool tory.

[DeathByTheSword]

me is against the 'war' in Iraq but good that they captured him.

about where to trial:
for the crimes against the Iraqi people in Iraq

and i know it is impossible to go to the ICC but for the war crimes against Iran and Kuweit it might be better to trail him in an international court

not that you can give life sentence to some one that is already hanged and quartered by the iraqi`s