Saddam deathpenalty?

[lamina]

I didnt write weather i agree ore not on the attack on Iraque.
I was just trying to xplain the reason that they were attacked.

I was simply summing up the arguments for the attack. There is many
opinions about what what actually happened, ie. did Saddam finance Al Quada etc.

But imo you can justify taking Saddam to an international cought, taking in perspective the official reason for attacking.

Its a fact that iraque was attacked and Saddam has been caught.
Also its a fact that with the arguments for attacking the prosecution
have to be an international matter.

And then we shouldnt give him deathpenalty becoz its against our
own democratic thoughts.

If I agree and believe in the used arguments for attacking is another thing.

 

[Hector]

But imo you can justify taking Saddam to an international cought, taking in perspective the official reason for attacking.

So the reasons for attacking Iraq are just that they have sponsored terrorism against the US and other countries, and that it had WMD, which is against the NATO agreement?

If it was just those reasons, how could it be justified at all? The inspectors found nothing, in fact one of them now continually and publicly denounces the war. And the link to Bin Laden STILL hasn't been proven, despite rumours.

It should be thrown out of court straight away!

Now IRAQ may well have been planning on using extant WMD, and may well have financed terrorism, and his (alleged) mass murdering will soon come to light. But you seem to have completely disregarded all other opinions about possible other motives for US involvement (to the point of defying the UN) involving Bush's business dealings. You've simplified the situation to the point where the US is completely above reproach and is the poor innocent victim. This simply isn't the case. Nothing is EVER that simple when it comes to political motivation and certainly not in this case.

 

[lamina]

Im not saying weather i belive in the arguments for attacking.
But no matter what, that is the arguments - cutted down to
the bone - they used.

If they should ever had attacked..well..they did.
And if they shouldnt have..then what..rewind and put Saddam
back in his hole?

I dont disregard other options.

I just simply state that this is an international matter, as the -
as i wrote - officiel reasons -beeing true ore not - made it
an International matter.
Coz these arguments made Denamrk and other contries send ppl down there as well.

We have imo a situation where a country has beeing attacked
and their dictator caught. The question is: what to do about him?

Should he have a trial in Iraque, USA ore Haag? Should he have
the deathpenaly ore prison?

So this is very much an international problem. Its in no democratic
countrys interest helping them to get a democratic country by starting of executing their former leader.....

 

[lamina]

"So the reasons for attacking Iraq are just that they have sponsored terrorism against the US and other countries, and that it had WMD, which is against the NATO agreement?"

where in my post do u read that thats what I think?
that is the offcial! reasons....thats the argument
usa had to attack. I didnt make these arguments up..usa did.

if they had said "we wanna go to Iraque..bomb them and get control
of their oil"..do u in all honesty think that europe would have
send men down there to help?

 

[Hector]

Then I have no idea what you're trying to say. What's the point of simply repeating the rubbish- the official reasons- we hear from the government spokesmen every day?

Part of the reason that there is a discussion on what to do with Saddam, aside from humane reasons, is that some people are considering the hypocrisy of the countries you're talking about.

So what is your point?

 

[lamina]

My point is that we have to look at the situation here and now and
prevent further damadge.

the war against Iraque has now been going on for 11 years.... And since the 11 of september the securety council has lost an incredeble amount of legetimacy becoz of the resolutions beeing made. Imo the even tragic
new interpretation of the folkright and the way that these interpretations
has been followed up in reality has seriously undermined the foundation
for the system that was made to handle international conflicts. The principles and the konventions that was made after the Westfalske peace has imho been ruined coz of a totally paranoid revengepolitic after the attacks on Pentagon and WTC.USA and FN decided to accept the use of "selfdefence"...even though I find it hard to see how u can use selfdefence before knowing if u get attacked.

So i do not agree with the arguments used.
But the deathpenaly of saddam will EXCATLY put the extremist in a position where they can point fingers and human rights and democratic countries and stand that we are not even able to obey with the law ourselfs....and THAT will be tragic.
Weather usa should have attacked ore not is imo totally useless to discuss..instead the here and now fact..what should happend to saddam...should be the question.

 

[Hector]

Weather usa should have attacked ore not is imo totally useless to discuss..instead the here and now fact..what should happend to saddam...should be the question.

I don't agree. What happens to Saddam now is utterly irrelevant. He's a pawn of the propaganda machine and the media and political frenzy around him detract from the important issue which is the original motives for waging war against Iraq (sorry, terrorists) and, by association, the ethics of warmongering as a direct result of manipulative and damaging foreign policy. Unless this is a major consideration this will continue to happen time and time again.

What we have here is a symptom, not a cause.

 

[dog]

I think you two are fundamentally agreeing tbh:

1. It is very important, that saddams capture, trial and punishment is handled as well as possible, to prevent it being used(too succesfully) as a tool of the extremists in the middle east.
2. The was DID happen, so argueing over wether it should have, may not be very productive, that is however not to say you shouldnt learn from history.
3. This whole thing is a symptom of a system heavy handedly controlled by the US and in particulair their vast military might and the fact that they will use it politically to suit their own need...

And tbh, I find the other thread(yes, started by yours truely) a much more productive debate than this, but hey

 

[Hector]

I think you two are fundamentally agreeing tbh:

1. It is very important, that saddams capture, trial and punishment is handled as well as possible, to prevent it being used(too succesfully) as a tool of the extremists in the middle east.

I don't think we are. All sides (not just two) will of course try to use it as propaganda for their cause. My problem with Lamina's perspective- and yours to an extent-is it that saying "Well, what's done is done, let's move on" is exactly what's expected of us as happy sheep.

In fact, the whole problem of this is "Who is right", ie, who wears the white sheriff's hat and who wears the black bandit's hat. This isn't a film, and it's certainly not in black and white.

I'm happy that your other thread seeks to look forward to a progression but I'm happy in this one, filling it with bile and bitterness and treading water in a sea of ill-informed specfics and ersatz philosophy

 

[dog]

fs you really are an argumentative twat heccy

I am to some extent saying whats done is done, and I hope you are not argueing that ffs? But ofcourse that doesn't exclude the neccesity to study and try to learn from it, I thought I made that clear in my post and if I didn't make it clear enough, it should be bloody selfevident. And ofcourse its your right(hell its your nature), to point fingers and fill this thread with your normal argumentative bs, intelligent comments and weak philosophy, its both very amusing and sticks us to some very valid points...

Now wheres my beer?

 

[dog]

And I most certainly agree that all sides will try and use his trial / judgement as propaganda, its the very nature of politics that juicy bits like these will be milked dry by spindoctors and the like, but then again, that doesn't mean it can't be done so in for the "right" cause, no matter how you twist and turn the worlds nature these days, it's hard to argue againt extremism being the cause of much pain and suffering, I am in no way trying to paint the issues here black and white, it my eyes they are all a sickening brown tbh

 

[Hector]

My point is simply this:

How does a court deal with a monster that the plaintiff (US) helped create arm and finance in the first place?

"Right that's Saddam dealt with, take him away. Now...one or two other matters outstanding...."

I'm not being argumantative for the sake of it. I just think there are some points that need championing amidst all this enthusiastic noose-tying.

Anyway, I'm off for my hols. I'm sure this thread will be done in 10 days.

 

[dog]

I agree completely tbh

 

[lamina]

My point is simply this:

How does a court deal with a monster that the plaintiff (US) helped create arm and finance in the first place?

"Right that's Saddam dealt with, take him away. Now...one or two other matters outstanding...."

I do not at all get ur point?....

USA has given Iraque weapons during the war against Iran and coz of that its not Saddams fault?

 

[lamina]

My problem with Lamina's perspective- and yours to an extent-is it that saying "Well, what's done is done, let's move on" is exactly what's expected of us as happy sheep.

Its about sticking to the subject.
We could also discuss weather USA had never attacked but thats imo another discussion.
In a court u are senteced for what u have done and thats it. Nothing more..nothing less. And as the topic was about deathpenaly ore not im not sure y u want to discuss the attack.
Not by saying I dont find it relevant in the case of the Iraque conflict, but i cant see the relevance in a court of law...

 

[Ajax]

not really read it all but wanted to throw this little snipett of thought in the pot (its not my view just a what if)
If you get raided by the police in the uk for something if they find something totaly differant at your home they can't charge you for it (correct me if iam wrong thur)
The 'world police' went in looking for wmd they didnt find any, if we use our own standards he wouldnt even stand trail.....

like i say not my view but a thought to think upon from a stoned git

 

[Se7en]

Whos for a public hanging ? we can do a pay per view on sky, and the proceeds can go to rebuilding iraq ?

 

[Cassius]

hm, about the court descissions. getting a fair trial will be almost impossible. No court would have neutral standing grounds judging him. He is to well known and the things he "has" done. You could release him but most likely he'd be dead within a month. He has been deserted by the looks of it. Eitherways his life is ruined. Bye fluffybunny

 

[Hector]

The 'world police' went in looking for wmd they didnt find any, if we use our own standards he wouldnt even stand trail.....

Not only do I agree, I even said these exact words further up the thread.

 

[Hector]

Its about sticking to the subject.
We could also discuss weather USA had never attacked but thats imo another discussion.
In a court u are senteced for what u have done and thats it. Nothing more..nothing less. And as the topic was about deathpenaly ore not im not sure y u want to discuss the attack.
Not by saying I dont find it relevant in the case of the Iraque conflict, but i cant see the relevance in a court of law...

Fair enough Lamina. I concede I am getting OT.