On The Subject Of Flip Flopping

**j2k4** · 07-03-2004, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by Rat Faced@3 July 2004 - 07:11
I appear to be agreeing with J2K4 again....this really must stop.

Why?

It's good for you, Rat.

Seriously, we spend so much time arguing that the fact of our massive and overwhelming areas of agreement is, sadly, obscured by our views of real events.

We are both well aware (I think) of the nature of the basic "mechanism", and this, I feel, accounts for that which we would agree constitutes unalterable fact.

I sit here, though, feeling that if you had ever been where I am, and seen the things I'd seen, you would, of course, understand.

I'm sure you feel the same way.

**sparsely** · 07-03-2004, 03:57 PM

????

**j2k4** · 07-03-2004, 05:01 PM

Originally posted by Sparsely@3 July 2004 - 11:05

????

Actually, I prefer your POV, Sparsely.

**Rat Faced** · 07-04-2004, 06:54 PM

On the subject of "Flip Flopping", ive recently changed my mind on something..

Should Saddam be tried in Iraq?

Something happened last week that changed how i feel about this question...

Saddam stated to the Judge that the whole court thing now was just to help Bush with his election...

"Well so what? He's gonna say that!" I here everyone cry...and i would have too.....except.....

The court was packed full of American Journalists and one or two British Journalists.... the only Iraqi journalist was thrown out, to make way for another American Journalist....

Now this may sound trivial... but it shows that the Court is bending over backwards to please Americans, even at the expense of its own peoples rights... in other words, its already caving into political pressure, before its even began!!

This being the case, I now believe that Saddam will not get a fair trial in Iraq...and should be handed over to the International Courts.

Of course this will not happen, as Saddams defence will call on Bush Snr and Bush Jr, plus numerous others of both administrations (and possibly others) to answer questions they really do not want to, especially in a Court of Law and in front of the world...

**j2k4** · 07-04-2004, 07:26 PM

Sounds sort of conspiratorial to me.

Here's another one:

A certain Texas congresswoman, Eddie Bernice Johnson, has petitioned the U.N. to send a delegation to the U.S. in November to monitor the election process and thereby assure that blacks and "the International Community" don't have to suffer Republican malfeasance.

Sounds like this woman got some O.F.F. money to shill for the U. N.

BTW-Since Iran has let it be known they want a whack at Saddam too, should the U.N. and the World Court take up the cause?

Perhaps they should get him first.

**Biggles** · 07-04-2004, 08:06 PM

There is little doubt that the Iranians would love to have a "chat" with Saddam on matters relating to events in the 80s. It is equally likely that he would be none too keen to go on a day trip to Tehran.

**J'Pol** · 07-04-2004, 08:43 PM

To follow the line which this thread has taken.

In order to decide on the appropriate court one must consider the charges against him and then decide who has a right to try him. One must also accept that he may have to be tried multiple times, in multiple courts. That is only fair as any one court may not be competent to judge on all alleged offences.

I think the people of Iraq certainly have a right to try him. However if I remember correctly at least one of the charges related to action he took outside of Iraq. Am I right in saying the invasion of Kuwait is the basis of at least one charge.

On that basis he may have to be tried in Iraq and elsewhere. Possibly in some international court, however that on it's own would be seen as the people of Iraq being denied their rights.

It is also a matter for the people there to decide what type of trial he should have and whether it will be "fair". It is not our place to judge in advance whether that will happen.

Re "Flip-Flopping".

The ability to change one's views in the light of new information is a good thing, it is a sign of maturity and confidence, the ability to say " I was wrong". However it is OK to be "wrong" when you do not have all of the facts. You can be "right" based on the limited facts you have, whilst still being wrong in an absolute sense.

From a political point of view it is almost certainly suicide. It simply gives too much ammunition to one's opposition. It is a classic no win situation.