What happened to Saddam?

[tabs]

I know lets put Donald "YOUR FIRED" Trump in charge of Iraq.....

[Don 944 LA]

Man, I wasn't looking forward to the typing I was going to do when reading the latest .. but it seems that Red has pretty much handled my part.... Thanks Red ( & my keyboard thanks you )

[kach22i]

I just read that despite having 20 lawyers in a half dozen different countries, he still has not met/consulted with any of them. The US just canceled saddams first schedule meeting with a lawyer.

What's wrong with this picture?

Also read the US lost a bunch of evidence and are stalling. Plus Saddam is stalling because each delay is an extra day of life.

Possible trial dates are 2006 or beyond.

[red ufo]

Nelson Mandela was in prison along time because of white people too! They let him out and now he is the bomb.

Saddam has a good chance of getting out with the right lawyers. First of all he had no WMD, thus the invasion is illegal and immoral.

Second you do whatever you need to do to protect a nation. Saddam could make the case certain people were thugs and he took them out. Just like the beheadings in Saudi, not much outcry of that.

Also Saddam could spill the beans about Bush and daddys back door deals with Dumbsfield dirty hands all over it. He could mention how the US ok'd his invasion of Kuwait. This whole thing could do a 180 and turn into a ****e pile for the monkey administration. They better becareful, they're luck has run out.

They need to have a court room show of just theather to go about the motions to find a reason to kill saddam quickly before he gets diarhia mouth on old daddy bush stories.

The winner of any war makes up the rules and facts as they go and charges the loser with whatever they please. After WW2 Porsche was shutdown for helping the German war machine.

There is no real case against Saddam so watch for exception handling

Begin BS.
open main(){

try {

Saddam for something;

}

catch (exception crimes against humanity e){
println.sys.world.error (we got the f'ker e){
}

catch (exception wanton destroy e){
println.sys.world.error (we got the f'ker e){
}

catch (exception son drove a 928 e){
println.sys.world.error (we got the f'ker e){
}
}

We now return you back to your regularly scheduled programs......

[red ufo]

Originally posted by Mark Wilson
We now return you back to your regularly scheduled programs......

If you can't debate it then throw people under the bus.

And the mod sends me stuff to be quite. I guess you neocons can't debate at all just like Bush.

All you do is slam people because your out of good ideas.

Actually, I thought the tin foil hat was a great idea and very entertaining. Now, go be quite[sic].

[BigD9146gt]

Originally posted by red ufo

Saddam has a good chance of getting out with the right lawyers. First of all he had no WMD, thus the invasion is illegal and immoral.

Second you do whatever you need to do to protect a nation. Saddam could make the case certain people were thugs and he took them out. Just like the beheadings in Saudi, not much outcry of that.

Also Saddam could spill the beans about Bush and daddys back door deals with Dumbsfield dirty hands all over it. He could mention how the US ok'd his invasion of Kuwait. This whole thing could do a 180 and turn into a ****e pile for the monkey administration. They better becareful, they're luck has run out.

The winner of any war makes up the rules and facts as they go and charges the loser with whatever they please. After WW2 Porsche was shutdown for helping the German war machine.

1. I agree. There was more than enough evidence to put OJ behind bars, but he's off. Scott Pederson, although i think he's guilty, they've got nothin and he's going to die. Hire Johnny Cochram and his Chubacka and Ewok defense argument will get you off every time. Moral of the story, color of skin doesn't matter anymore, you have bank, you free!

2. They do have different culture. One in which i think would make people here think twice if we adopted a few "eye for an eye" practices.

I agree that keeping controll is important. But one story that sticks out in my mind as to the type of person Saddam is as fallows. He had some relatives (cousin or brother in law) who didn't agree with him about something he was doing. So they fled the country. Later, he tells them everything is alright and gets them to come back thinking everything is ok. Then he kills them. Now if they were going to kill Saddam or do something bad to him, why would they come back?

3. There is no proof. I wish there was because i think being in the middle east is wrong. If there was proof, don't you think that Saddam would have spilled by the time we stepped foot on his soil????

4. Porsche and WW2. Yes, they were "found guilty" by the "French" who basically gave up becuase they didn't want to spend the money to stay free from Nazi occupation. Anyways, your a design firm during Hitlers rain of Germany.

Porsche HAD NO CHOICE. If your kid thinks your not with the Nazis, he's going to tell the officials and your going to die. Its not like Iraq where if you don't agree with Saddam you can keep it to yourself and leave the country. Who would have known back in 1945 if Hitler wasn't giong to rule the world. If he would have succeeded, the Porsche family would have been found and killed. Saddam was the dictator of his country, so don't mix up Porsches history with those of the Iraqie people.

Yes, the "old" saying, he who wins the war writes the history books. But in this day and age, i think its alot harder to get away with this because there is so much more involement with the news and other governments. If you have a computer and you witness something, you can tell the world. Back in WW2, it was easier to hide things. Education was easier to controll. Today we know so much more about history and who/what/why people did things because of the media.

[red ufo]

Originally posted by BigD9146gt
1. I agree. There was more than enough evidence to put OJ behind bars, but he's off. Scott Pederson, although i think he's guilty, they've got nothin and he's going to die. Hire Johnny Cochram and his Chubacka and Ewok defense argument will get you off every time. Moral of the story, color of skin doesn't matter anymore, you have bank, you free!

2. They do have different culture. One in which i think would make people here think twice if we adopted a few "eye for an eye" practices.

I agree that keeping controll is important. But one story that sticks out in my mind as to the type of person Saddam is as fallows. He had some relatives (cousin or brother in law) who didn't agree with him about something he was doing. So they fled the country. Later, he tells them everything is alright and gets them to come back thinking everything is ok. Then he kills them. Now if they were going to kill Saddam or do something bad to him, why would they come back?

3. There is no proof. I wish there was because i think being in the middle east is wrong. If there was proof, don't you think that Saddam would have spilled by the time we stepped foot on his soil????

4. Porsche and WW2. Yes, they were "found guilty" by the "French" who basically gave up becuase they didn't want to spend the money to stay free from Nazi occupation. Anyways, your a design firm during Hitlers rain of Germany.

Porsche HAD NO CHOICE. If your kid thinks your not with the Nazis, he's going to tell the officials and your going to die. Its not like Iraq where if you don't agree with Saddam you can keep it to yourself and leave the country. Who would have known back in 1945 if Hitler wasn't giong to rule the world. If he would have succeeded, the Porsche family would have been found and killed. Saddam was the dictator of his country, so don't mix up Porsches history with those of the Iraqie people.

Yes, the "old" saying, he who wins the war writes the history books. But in this day and age, i think its alot harder to get away with this because there is so much more involement with the news and other governments. If you have a computer and you witness something, you can tell the world. Back in WW2, it was easier to hide things. Education was easier to controll. Today we know so much more about history and who/what/why people did things because of the media.

Very good points.

They can get something on Saddam for sure, but what?

It has to be the biggest charge they can dream up and win. What is he currently charged with? By what jurisdiction has the law to do this?

If the reason for war, the WMD was false, can't he get off on technicality if tried under US system? You can't just make up reason to arrest someone, then when called on the carpet, so how gives a crap we're gonna get him away. I know thats Bush idea of justice but the supreme court would throw it out eventually.

My next guess if Iraq turns out like US with laws and democracy. Can't some of the bombing victims in Iraq sue the US for screw ups and its lawyer city bankrupting us. Maybe they didn't in WWII but you didn't have a nation of lawyers and ambulance chasers like you do now?

Possible Edward comeback plan?

Some how a plot to hand him over will happen but an accident will take place in the transportation I bet.

[SLO-BOB]

This is a test...............

[red ufo]

Originally posted by Sebring77
(insert sarcasm) Ahhhh yes. That Saddam is a righteous dude. In between gardening and ignoring his 20 lawyers he probably daydreams of better times. Who can forget the whimsical expressions of the condemned cabinet members as he named them to be executed outside in the street. I can only imagine the warm, fuzzy feeling he felt as he murdered his uncle to take power. Let's not forget Saddam's favorite hobby-genocide. The Kurds had that a comin". I'll bet the Hussein boys had a big laugh as his secret police related tales of the daily beheading-"Haha-you shoulda seen the look on her face!" Yes! Saddam in 05! Every other dictator in the world is a saddistic killer-why are we messing with poor Saddam?

(Sarcasm removed) So the one good thing coming out of this war you insult-the removal of a sadistic dictator. There's plenty of other things to mock-like GW's increasingly amusing foul ups here. I think to say that the Iraqi people need someone like Saddam is a grave insult.

Was it our affair? I believe not. The world is a toilet and we should fix our own society, not their's. At best we should have just sent him a love letter (Blue Velvet ref) and hoped for better.

Yes, the old Iraq is better off routinue.

2 1/2 years after the US invasion we carpet bombed fallujah last saturday. Is that better off?

Did Saddam carpet bomb his own cities? Did he move 300,000 people to camps and blow up towns for a few dozen bad guys? Retina scan them? The US has killed more insurgents in Fallujah then Saddam did to the Kurdish village.

Right now Bush has the high score in killing Iraqis faster than any rate Saddam might have done. The US will kill 10% or more of Iraq before any democracy works. == not worth it.

If Iran, or North Korea were to attack the US while our cash and military is stretched out. Iraq is a war of choice not of nessacity that bogs us down.

Iraq is simply the wrong target in this terror war IMHO.

[on-ramp]

red ufo, you say it like it is.. the arrogant hypocrisy of the neo-cons is just downright mind-blowing.

[SLO-BOB]

This is a test...............

[Don 944 LA]

I think the cowboy is waiting for someone to pop Saddam...

or drag it out till some evidence is found ( cough !! Cough!! created ) .. like those WMD's ( and no, old worn out planes buried in the sand don't count )

The " Capture " of Saddam was the worst thing that could have happened to the Bush administration. Ideally it woul;d have been to their benefit to wave him in front of cameras then have someone pop a cap in him a few days later .... but now it's a different story and as time goes by we (as a people) will surpass any attrocities that Saddam did.

I'll take arrogant. I deserve that because I'm right. You guy's philisophical blather would never make it in the real world. That's why your side lost. You want to talk and wax poetic. We kick ass.

[cool_chick]

Originally posted by Mark Wilson
I'll take arrogant. I deserve that because I'm right. You guy's philisophical blather would never make it in the real world. That's why your side lost. You want to talk and wax poetic. We kick ass.

That's not why the dems lost. It's because Bush and his cronies are real good at brainwashing......

I will admit, his campaign manager was a genius. He could get Manson elected!

[Victor]

Originally posted by Mark Wilson
I'll take arrogant. I deserve that because I'm right. You guy's philisophical blather would never make it in the real world. That's why your side lost. You want to talk and wax poetic. We kick ass.

......just like you kicked Bin Laden's ass?

I feel this justifies a whole new thread.

[rrpjr]

In responses to repeated claims that Iraq is an “illegal war” – I’d appreciate some clarification. That is, first, how would you define a war as legal or illegal, and second, accordingly, how is this war illegal. In the meantime, I’ll provide some of my own. This war was sanctioned both by a vote of congress as well as by a series of broadly defined United Nations resolutions which in all but formal declaration (which the United Nations never issues anyway), authorized military action. It is a common myth that the United Nations never spoke about possible action against Hussein. The issue was always to what extent the rest of the world would go before it exhausted “other means” to bring Hussein into compliance. The UN issued more than a dozen resolutions against Saddam Hussein in the years since the first Gulf War clearly defining what actions by his government constituted violations which would call for actionable responses. Of course, to the UN, there is never a finite point to tolerating violators of international law. They didn’t have the backbone to explicitly authorize putting an end to Hussein. And, as stated, our own congress voted to approve a military response. Saddam Hussein was in violation of more than a dozen United Nations resolution and, in clear violation of our treaties with him at the end of the first Gulf war, had consistently waged war against US and British pilots in the no-fly zone. Bill Clinton was “waging war” against Hussein – that is, approving aerial engaements with Iraqi ground forces – throughout his entire term. We didn't start this war, we finished it. If any war was ever “legal,” it was this one.

Anyone who explains away Husseins savagery as fliply as some do here are just playing games of provocation and needn't be taken seriously. If not, if they are indeed serious, then I suggest they speak to an authentic Kurd. This is a group of people of valor and character hard really to fathom once you hear what they have gone through, a people who came close to being eliminated under Hussein. An hour with a Kurd will forever change your views on Iraq under Hussein, if not your life as a Westerner.

[cool_chick]

Well then rrjpr, based on this, I would assume it is perfectably acceptable for the UN to finally do something about Israel....you know, the resolutions we continually veto in the UN?

Based on this, I say the UN says screw the US and takes care of Israel once for all.

[nostatic]

I never quite understand why people are 'captured'. Don't the soldiers carry extra throw away guns? When they found him, they should have shot him, planted the throw away, and we wouldn't be dealing with this nonsense.

Not that I'm bitter or anything these days...