Botellines

I assure you i am not extreme at all. The tittle of this thread is Should Saddam be released? not What would you like to do with Saddam? Personally i wouln´t mind the slightest that Saddam ends up death. He deserve it. But setting personal feelings aside, there is some international laws out there that we must comply with. We cannot break them whenever it suit us. I am referring exclusively with my previous post to the legal aspects of his captivity.

I think the freed Iraqi majority who are in favor of the new democracy and had to suffer under Saddam's brutal dictatorship have the biggest stake in the game. Once they have the structure in place, I think he should be tried under Iraq's jurisdiction. I can think of nothing better than for the Iraqis to be able to exact justice on the person who formerly terrorized them. Fair enough, but what group will you give him to? the SD supporters who will give him shelter and will help him to get the power again when the USA is gone, or the people who suffered from Sadam´s dictatorship efectively condemn him to death? Maybe you should release him in the middle of a strret and see who gets him first. (you can make some dollars broadcasting it on payperview)

I shouldn’t be so naïve as to ask myself questions like this but I did. I thought, is this guy for real? Are there really people out there like this who think this is a “tough question?” That’s why I haven’t posted here until now. Then I looked at your profile and saw that you were from Spain. Who would have thought it? I don´t think you understand my logic, so i will explain myself a bit better. He was for several reasons detained illegally. In first place, The US has no jurisdiction over Irak, and besides there is international treaties to prevent countries to interfere with other countries internal affairs. In other words, you cannot put him on trial for killing his own people, you could do it for having WMD if you find them, but not for his internal affairs. In the other hand, this was a war (irregular and illegal) but a war, so i guess he could be consider prisoner of war. But, the war is over (Bush said it), so acording to geneva´s convention he should be liberated (someone correct me if i am wrong). To set him free would be quite risky, though, for us and for him (he is not much liked now), although in my opinion that would be the lawfull thing to do. If you are going to follow international law, as any democratic country that respect human rights should do, it IS a tough question. If you are going to do whatever pleases you most, it is not tough at all.

Tough question!!! Although i think that this war was illegal and this should never have happened, i don´t think that releasing Saddam Hussein would be a wise idea. Go figure how pissed he must be. If before he was not financing terrorists, now he will. I think he should go to court and end up in the cell next to Milosevic. The real question is: what should we do with Bush, Blair and Aznar? In my opinion, they should go to court as well. Even if "only" for those 8000 civilians dead in Irak. My 0.2 Euros

You don´t know what you are talking about, you where not here and you are not investigating this thoroughly, only enough to prove your point. At first, everybody thought it was ETA, even myself, as i stated in another post. Then the suspicion of islamic terrorism started growing among the population. Then we found a pickup close to Alcala de Henares (where the trains started the journey and the bombs where planted) with 8 bomb fuses and several islamic tapes with the Coran in them. At that point everybody thought that it was islamic terrorism, the only doubt was wether ETA had provided with logistics (apparently they didnt). Still the government insisted that it was ETA (to do otherwise wouldn´t have been good for them). That versy same night (2 days before elections) there was on puvblic television a documental about Eta terrorism. That goes to show haw biased the pucblic television was. Just so you know, the public television should not be biased to any political party by law. a Journalist is about to loose his job because of misleading information toward the government cause. Many people politically indiferent about the war in Irak voted against Aznar to punish him for such abuse. http://www.noticiasdot.com/publicaciones/2004/0304/1603/noticias160304/noticias160304-1.htm As you can see, there is much more into it that just us chickening out in a terrorist attack. The poll showed than although PP was wining PSOE was getting close. add to this the people who felt indiferent about politics but because the bombs decided to vote for PSOE and people who thought that Aznar was lieing to us and you will realize if you are not blind that it is enough to change an election. I concede that maybe there could have been people who was going to vote Aznar and they changed the vote for the terrorist attack, but if so, i assure you that this is the exception, not the norm.

Yes, but i am talking about how a terrorist attack can influence election. A terrorist attack in US soil would give Bush advantage, a terrorist attack to US troops on Irak would give advantage to Kerry. A terrorist attack in Spain when the terrorist want money, or land (ETA) ot make us do something we don´t want will lead to nothing, just like what would happen in the USA. A terrorist attack when they want the same thing than we want, will lead to the actual situation. Talking about polls. They are very biased, even the polls paid by the government (the most biased) showed that Zapatero was shortening the distance to Aznar. I am sure that some people changed the vote due to the terrorist attacks, but what this act of terror did mostly was to convince people who felt indiferently about politics take part in the election process http://www.esmas.com/noticierostelevisa/internacionales/349999.html

The terrorist attack did NOT change what we felt, or our will. The only thing it did was to make us do something we should have done before, get rid of a government that does not represent us. In any case, the polls are never accurate (specially if they are paid by the government) so we will never know what would have happened if the terrorist attack had not taken place. By the way, no one has giving me a better solution to the problem. Out of the two options we had which one would you have taken?

Probably AQ DOES think that they changed our will with theyr bombing, and to some extent, the bombing have influenced the poll. Don´t you think it is normal? If 4 days before election, Irak attack your troops and kill 200 soldiers and severely wound 1200 troops, Bush will NOT be elected in your country and Kerry WILL pull out the troops in Irak. It seems that what you want from Spain is to set example so it will not happen to the USA. Something by the way that i am not sure the USA would do for the rest of the world. Now, if we had supported your war all along, this terrorist attack would have changed nothing. The USA didn´t have Spain as an ally in this war, only Aznar, who happened to be at that time the president of the government (not prime minister, Gawain). We all Spaniards support your cause against terror, at least for a time and if you don´t take your preventive war policy farther. We DON´T support war on american interest behalf, and we are not going to die so halliburton becomes richer. You want help from us to fight terrorism, you got it. You want us to die so less of your troops will die in the name of oil and money. Sorry, i am not doing that. And believe me that this has nothing to do with guts or lack of, it is just common sense. By the way, Spain is pulling the troops ONLY if the UN don´t take part of the government in Irak. You cannot swim and keep the clothes. Let the UN participate, and you will be able to get your troops out ina somewhat dignified manner, and less people will die. The problem is that then some rich people will make less money. Pajarito, i find your words quite offensive. I was trying to write a comeback without disrespecting too many people but i couldn´t. Everybody is someone´s bitch. Do you know who your bitch is?, i do it starts with an H.

I think that the choice for a potential mother to end the pregnancy is a tough one. No mentally healthy woman would resort to that option unless it was the best option. And for sure, no one would use abortion as a birth control method. So if it is such a tough decision, why can we take it so lightly on their behalf? Besides, If a woman gets raped (unfortunately it happens too often) what would be the solution? Would she have to live seeing in the child her raper´s face? could she ever move on? I agree that there should be some regulation, but the potential mother should have some word on it.

You are wrong. Sorry it is in Spanish, but look at the date. this newspaper is "right wing" so it says there was only 800.000 people, but there was at least 4 times as much. http://www.el-mundo.es/elmundo/2003/02/15/internacional/1045327901.html

I get your point. Since apparently no one disagree with the fact that Spanish citizens didn´t want to join the war and it was done against our will, and the moment to get rid of a government that does not represent you is at election time, what would you have done? 2 options: A) we stick with the USA and the terrorist changes the free will of the majority of the spaniards B) We do what needed to be done and appear in front of our allies as cowards. Out of two evils, i think we chose correctly. I agree that the terrorist will think they got their way, so, yes, i expect one more terrorist attack here. When they do it and we don´t do what they want, they will have to realize that we don´t fold under pression. By the way, ETA stoped killing only military and government people 25 years ago. Civilians are in their agenda since the beggining of the democracy.

If you actually read my whole post you will read that i called our ex-president Puppet. So not only i disaprove your government. I am not so naive to think that all the wars are provoked by the US, only many. But if the US actually pull out, the whole situation in the middle east will be much better (Just in case you care witch i doubt). And on top of that more US soldiers will return home alive. If you pretended to be funny besides insulting my intellingence with your post, sorry, it was way too long. I suggest keeping jokes to one or two lines.

I disagree. If we haven´t fold under pressure from ETA in 30 years, i doubt we will do it now. They only claimed what we all claimed. If a terrorist blows up the empire state building claiming he wants freedom of speech. Would the US been folding under pressure? If we are going to oppose just because the terrorists, the next attack will be to claim that they want spanish troops in Irak.

Sorry, but you have no idea wether we wanted to be there or not. If you disagree with your government, you express your disatisfaction at election time (It is called Democracy). And we did. What don´t you get? I agree it was bad timing, but as i said in another thread we didn´t get to choose when the terrorist attack was going to be. WE DIDN´T WANT THIS WAR. Do you have any clue how serious some issue must be to move 80 percent of the population to protest in the streets? In case you are wondering why we didn´t do anything before elections it is because to actively oppose your government outside election times is called a riot, and in a democracy, you will get in trouble.

Now I am upset. We don´t owe anyone an apology. I was one of almost 4 million persons (in a city of 5 million) who went to the streets claiming we didn´t want to participate in an illegal, inmoral war. It is not our fault if the Puppet of our president decided to go against our will. He has paid the price as Blair is paying and Bush will pay in election time. Do you want an apology? maybe you should get one from that uneducated fool you have for a president. Or maybe from his now-much-richer friends who supported this war. Maybe everybody who died in Madrid should get an apology from who started this illegal war. Maybe the family of those american soldiers that are dying day by day should get an apology from your government. Do you think a whole country should apology for a choice taken by his government? Well, if so start apologizing to whoever you think deserve it for supporting Osama Bin Laden against the soviets, or Sadam Hussein, etc etc. For Gods shake, we have all been lied to support this war, the reasons for all thios nonsense keep changing every month to suit yor president interests. Wake up!!! it is not american interests anymore, it is your fat cats interest. The sooner you all Bush´s supporters realize that you are beeing cheated, the less people worldwide will die. And less foolish you will feel when the truth comes out.

Of course, i would help her out, but it is not the same. There is a diference beetwen seeing a rape going on where you are and helping out and going on purpose where you know that there could be trouble to help. That is the job of the policeman. Also it is worth to note that that help is not apreciated anymore. I don´t even know if it was apreciated at some time. (I am talking about Irak, of course)

I think that they only want to be left alone. They don´t want any other country to interfere with their business. And why should we anyway? clearly the UN don´t interfere with other countries that need it much more than Irak. As far as i know, (feel free to correct me if i am wrong), their Coran says to fight the infidel in the muslim world, not fight the infidel wherever they are. If we totally leave them alone and they continue with terrorism, then i will agree with you.

Cool Thread Conundrum!!!! 1.- An Ex-girlfriend left me for my best friend´s girlfriend. 2.- I went to the hospital five times in a month for 5 diferent accidents. (my feet running the bulls, my back skydiving, my neck with a car accident, condom broke so i got tested for STD, broke my other leg skydiving) Not all bad though, i passed the test to become an Air Traffic Controller!! YEAH!!!

Carlsberg Special Brew rocks. It is said that you don´t choose HER, She chooses YOU.

You right. Unfortunately, had not taken place the terrorist attack, most likely the PP would have been reelected, although with a very small advantage. However, i don´t think it was the terrorist attack per se what changed the mind of the citizenship, but how the government dealt with that. They kept lieing to us saying it was ETA when they already knew it was Al Quaeda. They forced those lies to the televisions they controlled and tried to deceive everybody for their political interests. The truth came to light before the poll and the spaniards punish them because of those lies. I admit it may look otherwise but as i said before we didn´t get to choose when the bombs would blow up. I would have much prefered that the votes went for someone because people thought it would be a good president, not because they thought that the other would make a poor president.

Dagny, perhaps is not the word... For sure spanish people were against the war on Irak. When we woted Aznar, (i include myself) we had no clue that he would go to a war outside the UN. Had we known, the PP wouldn´t have been elected. But since he got the mayority of the congress he could do as he pleased for 4 years. I am not with the actual president, but i think that Aznar was much worse. I agree with you about the timing though. Too bad they didn´t ask when it was convenient for us to die!!!! I guess we could have posponed election, but wouldn´t that be interfering with the democracy of a country? As for the treaties with Morocco... You don´t get to choose your neighbours. If it was up to me, Morocco would be some place in the artic pole and i would have switzerland move south of spain. (nice weather). But since that is not possible, it is wise to be in good terms with your neighbours (not that i like it, but i consider it necesary to some extent). Why don´t we just move out of Irak. No American will die anymore there Irak, Spanish people will see the end of a war that didn´t ask for. Sadam is dead, Irak has a new constitution. Is it really worth to keep fighting there? I am not asking for the US, UK or Spain, i am asking for YOU and ME, dor normal people. I sure know it is not worth it.

Oh my god!!! Enrique Iglesias Skydiving. It would be the worst ride to altitud. I would only do hops and pops around him. Even if he doesnt sing Just the way he speaks!!!!! He has this preppy california-valley girl accent, and 50% of the words he speaks are: "yeah", "so", "well" Just my 0.2 drunken cents. (Of Euro)

thanks to all of you for your support, it is very much apreciate it. At this points we don´t know for sure wether it was ETA or Al Quaeda. The Al quaeda option is taking more credibility as days passes. At first everybody thought it was ETA because we have had to put up with their shit for 30 years, and they were caught red handed with 500Kg of explosives a month ago, and over x-mas they tried to blow up Chamartin train station. However, Al quaeda have reason to want to do it as well. Of course sick and twisted reasons. We will know it for sure this week when our fucking government decides to release all the info. Tomorrow we have general elections, and the result will be greatly influentiacted for whoever did the bombing. If ETA was responsible, the actual governbment will be reelected, for they are the hardest against terrorism. If al quaeda was responsible the actual government may not be reelected because he helped the US in the war with Irak against the will of the citizens. So once the election is over we will know all the facts. Personally, i am starting to think it was Al Quaeda. I will keep you informed.

I am sorry man. Vibes for you and your family. I bet he will be home soon.

ETA started with Francos´ dictatorship. At that time everybody saw ETA with a bit of simpathy because the basque country was quite opressed (well, as everybody) and they ONLY attacked military people (who kept Franco in charge). When Franco died in 1975 ETA decided that they wanted to be independent of Spain along with the region of Navarra (spain) and south of France (who by the way don´t want the independence). They progresively changed their methos and instead of attacking high ranked militar decided to kill indiscrimately with bombs. ETA has been killing since 1970, aproximately. and overall there has been over 1200 casualties for their terrorist attacks.