The War in Iraq, is it legal?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

We will be very glad of that when the day comes when we're not the most powerful nation on the planet any more.

none of us will be alive at that point. Well, we could easily not be the most powerful, but will still have enough heft to avoid being someone else's Iraq.

[sv3n 0]

Quote

Quote

We will be very glad of that when the day comes when we're not the most powerful nation on the planet any more.

none of us will be alive at that point. Well, we could easily not be the most powerful, but will still have enough heft to avoid being someone else's Iraq.

The cold war was won not by arms, but by an economic recession. We're due for another depression, we're low on oil, and we're dependant on the rest of the world. Things can change very quickly.

Like you said, I also don't think we'll be someone's Iraq...........but you never know. And like I said, people are gonna remember our previous actions and base their decisions regarding helping or working with us on those previous actions.

...and you're in violation of your face!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

The cold war was won not by arms, but by an economic recession.

Not remotely true. Without the arms race, the Soviets don't collapse. Without the arms, the Soviets roll on US and Western Europe. One alone doesn't get you there.

Japan might seem to prove the opposite, but they have the ability to develop a nuclear program rather quickly if they develop the will.

[billvon 3,120]

>Without the arms race, the Soviets don't collapse.

Ever looked at Soviet agriculture in the 70's and 80's? The USSR was on its way to collapse with or without the arms race. We just sped up the inevitable.

[leewilcox 0]

Um, I'm gonna have to disagree with Billvon here on the we had him killed part. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Saddam_Hussein
Saddam was captured on December 13, 2003.
Saddam was tried by the Iraqi Interim Government for crimes against humanity. Saddam was convicted and sentenced to be hanged. He had an appeal that was denied. Sentence was carried out on Dec. 30, 2006.
Let's just say that the Iraqi Interim Government and the Iraqi Special Tribunal had enough reasons of their own to have him executed, without undue influence from US govt or any other Coalition govt. Let's just say that...

"Nothing exists except atoms and empty space; everything else is opinion" - Democritus

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>Without the arms race, the Soviets don't collapse.

Ever looked at Soviet agriculture in the 70's and 80's? The USSR was on its way to collapse with or without the arms race. We just sped up the inevitable.

It's a lot cheaper to import grain than it is to maintain a massive war making potential along with the nuclear deterrent. The US has no trouble importing oil.

[sv3n 0]

Quote

Quote

>Without the arms race, the Soviets don't collapse.

Ever looked at Soviet agriculture in the 70's and 80's? The USSR was on its way to collapse with or without the arms race. We just sped up the inevitable.

It's a lot cheaper to import grain than it is to maintain a massive war making potential along with the nuclear deterrent. The US has no trouble importing oil.

But are we self-reliant with that oil or are we depending on someone else? And could others cut us off from the oil? I know we have reserves, but how long would they last?

...and you're in violation of your face!

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Um, I'm gonna have to disagree with Billvon here on the we had him killed part. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Saddam_Hussein
Saddam was captured on December 13, 2003.
Saddam was tried by the Iraqi Interim Government for crimes against humanity. Saddam was convicted and sentenced to be hanged. He had an appeal that was denied. Sentence was carried out on Dec. 30, 2006.
Let's just say that the Iraqi Interim Government and the Iraqi Special Tribunal had enough reasons of their own to have him executed, without undue influence from US govt or any other Coalition govt. Let's just say that...

Lets also consider that the Iraqi government is a puppet of the US, elected and operating under rules devised by the US occupying force, and that the trial process was also designed by the US.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Lets also consider that the Iraqi government is a puppet of the US, elected and operating under rules devised by the US occupying force, and that the trial process was also designed by the US.

What trial system in the Middle East would you rather be tried under instead of that of the US? Taliban?

[sv3n 0]

Quote

Quote

Lets also consider that the Iraqi government is a puppet of the US, elected and operating under rules devised by the US occupying force, and that the trial process was also designed by the US.

What trial system in the Middle East would you rather be tried under instead of that of the US? Taliban?

Regardless of who conducted the trial, everybody including us new the outcome before we even handed him over for the trial......which is what I believe was part of Kallend's original point. We new he was going to hang and made sure he was going to be there for it.

...and you're in violation of your face!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Lets also consider that the Iraqi government is a puppet of the US, elected and operating under rules devised by the US occupying force, and that the trial process was also designed by the US.

What trial system in the Middle East would you rather be tried under instead of that of the US? Taliban?

Regardless of who conducted the trial, everybody including us new the outcome before we even handed him over for the trial......which is what I believe was part of Kallend's original point. We new he was going to hang and made sure he was going to be there for it.

And your problem with this is....??

He was a dictator; he killed many of his citizens. In most countries, murder has a price, either life or loss of life. Why would we give him asylum?

Alternatives would be to try him in the US, which I know you'd decry, or shoot him on the spot, which many would consider inappropriate.

[sv3n 0]

Quote

And your problem with this is....??

In a trial the outcome is decided at the end....not before it starts.

If we are trying to spread justice and democracy our actions did not help spread that..........if Saddam could not get a fair trial in Iraq, which seems to have been the case, then he should have been on trial elsewhere. Maybe infront of the UN.

...and you're in violation of your face!

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Lets also consider that the Iraqi government is a puppet of the US, elected and operating under rules devised by the US occupying force, and that the trial process was also designed by the US.

What trial system in the Middle East would you rather be tried under instead of that of the US? Taliban?

That is not in the least relevant or valid, any more than "Clinton did it first" is a valid excuse for bad behavior by Bush.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

And your problem with this is....??

In a trial the outcome is decided at the end....not before it starts.

If we are trying to spread justice and democracy our actions did not help spread that..........if Saddam could not get a fair trial in Iraq, which seems to have been the case, then he should have been on trial elsewhere. Maybe infront of the UN.

When a known murderer goes on trial, the end result is hardly suprising. Was there a violation of due process in his trial?

Tell me, in what court would he not have been found guilty? The only difference would be in the penalty.

If you really believe that it's important to stick to the principles of democracy and justice, you let the local people decide on local crimes. If, on the other hand, you think you know better than the Iraqi people, then you declare them incapable of judgement and insist on setting the court system for them.

[sv3n 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

And your problem with this is....??

In a trial the outcome is decided at the end....not before it starts.

If we are trying to spread justice and democracy our actions did not help spread that..........if Saddam could not get a fair trial in Iraq, which seems to have been the case, then he should have been on trial elsewhere. Maybe infront of the UN.

When a known murderer goes on trial, the end result is hardly suprising. Was there a violation of due process in his trial?

Tell me, in what court would he not have been found guilty? The only difference would be in the penalty.

If you really believe that it's important to stick to the principles of democracy and justice, you let the local people decide on local crimes. If, on the other hand, you think you know better than the Iraqi people, then you declare them incapable of judgement and insist on setting the court system for them.

Everybody deserves a fair trial, regardless of who they are. It might seem like a dream to some people, but that's the way it's supposed to be.

If we knew he was not going to get a fair trial, then it was our responsibility to make sure that he did get one. And since we set the government up, it's not like we're shy about telling these people how things should be done.

...and you're in violation of your face!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

When a known murderer goes on trial, the end result is hardly suprising. Was there a violation of due process in his trial?

Everybody deserves a fair trial, regardless of who they are. It might seem like a dream to some people, but that's the way it's supposed to be.

If we knew he was not going to get a fair trial, then it was our responsibility to make sure that he did get one. And since we set the government up, it's not like we're shy about telling these people how things should be done.

How many times will you ignore the question - how was his trial not fair? You have this retarded notion that the only fair result would have been a not guilty verdict.

That's not what due process means. In the vast majority of criminal cases, the end result a conviction.

[sv3n 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

When a known murderer goes on trial, the end result is hardly suprising. Was there a violation of due process in his trial?

Everybody deserves a fair trial, regardless of who they are. It might seem like a dream to some people, but that's the way it's supposed to be.

If we knew he was not going to get a fair trial, then it was our responsibility to make sure that he did get one. And since we set the government up, it's not like we're shy about telling these people how things should be done.

How many times will you ignore the question - how was his trial not fair? You have this retarded notion that the only fair result would have been a not guilty verdict.

That's not what due process means. In the vast majority of criminal cases, the end result a conviction.

here's some reading material........

http://www.ictj.org/en/news/coverage/article/1040.html

http://socialismandliberation.org/mag/index.php?aid=723

http://www.gulfnews.com/region/Iraq/10092901.html

http://www.nowpublic.com/saddam_hussien_trial_an_american_supported_mockery_0

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1732807/posts

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=5257



And it goes on and on.........if he was found guilty then so be it. But that finding should be found through a fair trial, not some sort of Jerry Springer publicity act passed off as a trial with the verdict given out at the beginning.

...and you're in violation of your face!