Saddam sentenced to hang until dead for crimes against Humanity. This confirms the reason to invade Iraq for all you naysayer's. [attachmentid=5606] http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061105/ts_nm/iraq_dc_21 Wildkow
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Nov 5 2006, 01:57 PM) [snapback]344154[/snapback]</div> You're cracking me up with your spelling! Ok, I read the news, and they didn't mention that they found WMDs, so I'm still naysaying. Although I did read in the news that the Bush Admin posted instructions for how to build an atomic bomb on the web, in Arabic no less.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Nov 5 2006, 11:04 AM) [snapback]344158[/snapback]</div> Pfffft.... A mere typo my good man. <_< Besides I got to keep the "Spelling Nazi's" happy and occupied. Wildkow
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Nov 5 2006, 02:16 PM) [snapback]344161[/snapback]</div> Sorry, I thought you did it on purpose. I'm a wurse spellr I asure yu.
I'm another naysayer. It's not surprising that he was found guilty of crimes against humanity. But that didn't justify the invasion of Iraq. We didn't invade Iraq in the first Gulf War, even though we knew Saddam was guilty of many of the crimes for which he has now been convicted. One of the reasons we didn't invade then was that we would have been overstepping our mandate, interfering in the affairs of another sovereign nation. An even more pressing reason was 'better the devil we know'. We DID invade this time, overthrew Hussein and helped establish a government, but Iraq has been on the brink of civil war for three years, becoming increasingly chaotic. Are the Iraqi citizens better off today than they were before before the invasion?
I am always curious about why the chickenhawks were so happy when Saddam was captured and now for his sentencing. Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and nothing to do with al Qaida. He may have been a cruel despot and a murderer but getting rid of him does not make one iota of difference in the war against terrorism. As a matter of fact, its probably a deadly distraction... Besides, am I the only one appaled at hanging as a method of execution and that this appear to be sanctioned by us??!!
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Nov 5 2006, 11:19 AM) [snapback]344163[/snapback]</div> K now ur jest provoking a argumint. Ther is no way ur a worst spelr than me! I r the wrost spelr I no! Wildkow <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Jeannie @ Nov 5 2006, 11:21 AM) [snapback]344164[/snapback]</div> In the first GW the UN charter did not allow that and the President complied. He was roundly criticized by the Dem's for obeying the UN Charter. Since then Saddam has violated I think 17 UN Resolutions some or most of which allowed for force to be used in response to violations. Bush just did what the UN was unwilling or unable to do. WIldkow
In what way does this justify anything? If it says anything, it's that we should have invaded North Korea.
You like creating martyrs for Al Qaida? Don't you think they hate enough already? Al Qaida already hates the U.S. almost as much as the Republican Party does, why make it worse? I'm no fan of Saddam (unlike Rumsfeld, *I* would never have given him money or arms), but this is the right action at the oh-so-wrong time. Wait until Iraq has a stable government and no more civil war, THEN do the revenge thing. Until then, can you say Powder Keg?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Nov 5 2006, 02:32 PM) [snapback]344168[/snapback]</div> Too bad that his son did not follow his example.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Nov 5 2006, 02:26 PM) [snapback]344167[/snapback]</div> Beheading and stoning could be worse. How about poison gas? How about a bullet to the back of the head like he had done to many of his victims. He's probably getting off easy with hanging. As far as when it is done, their rules I believe say that it has to be within 30 days after review by their high court. Violence has been escalating there - putting it off could actually make it worse.
Saddam was a mass murderer before and while he was on the U.S. payroll and Bush the elder was chief of the CIA and later VP of the U.S.A. First America pays, finances, and arms one of the world's most brutal despots, going so far as to supply him with chemical weapons, which he predictably uses against his neighbors and his own citizens, then America decides he's a bad man, invades his country, killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in the process and setting off a civil war, and now breathes a sigh of relief when a U.S.-established and funded court sentences him to hang. I will shed no tears for Saddam. But it sure would have been cheaper in the long run if we had never funded him in the first place.
The end does not justify the means or the lies used to arrive at this point. If it's justifiable for us to be the world police and invade any country who's leadership is commiting crimes against its citizens we've got another 20 countries to invade...or more. I'm glad Hussain is being brought to justice. I'm glad we caught him and I'm glad he's not the leader in Iraq. I think he's a criminal.... I think we went into Iraq for the wrong reasons and were not justified in our actions to do so. There are other, more civil, means to bring a criminal like him to justice and to curtail his ways.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(efusco @ Nov 5 2006, 06:47 PM) [snapback]344274[/snapback]</div> Of course I agree. But again, how many of those other countries has the oil Iraq has. That has been and always be the real reason we invaded. Actions always speak louder than words. If terrorism was really that big bad crowd we need protection from then we would not be in Iraq. But oil certainly has friends in D.C.
The crimes Saddam was convicted of today happened in 1982. The famous Rummy handshake was in 1983. First Rumsfeld was for Saddam, then he was against him....
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Nov 5 2006, 10:18 PM) [snapback]344351[/snapback]</div> :lol: :lol: :lol:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Nov 5 2006, 07:57 PM) [snapback]344154[/snapback]</div> ROFL You're too funny. Following that reasoning, you should invade North Korea, Iran, Syria, and perhaps another 25% of the countries in the world. And perhaps stop sponsoring some of these guys. Saddam once was one of the "good guys". What he did to his country didn't seem to be that important at that time.
