Should Saddam Be...

[Benno]

IMO he should be given to Iraqi justice as this was were he comitted his crimes. I, for my part, cant see how an american jury has the right to judge him by american laws. So to say its none of their business.

Im not judging the war itself thats another thing I just mean how can american judges judge him.

He restrained (?) the iraqui ppl and therefore they should judge over him.

[Lamsey]

Originally posted by Benno@15 December 2003 - 22:03
He restrained (?) the iraqui ppl and therefore they should judge over him.

I think the word you want is oppressed

I agree wholeheartedly.

[clocker]

Originally posted by Benno@15 December 2003 - 16:03
IMO he should be given to Iraqi justice as this was were he comitted his crimes. I, for my part, cant see how an american jury has the right to judge him by american laws. So to say its none of their business.

Im not judging the war itself thats another thing I just mean how can american judges judge him.

He restrained (?) the iraqui ppl and therefore they should judge over him.

I'm all for letting the Iraqis have at him.
Islamic law is far harsher than US law.
They have no problem inflicting a little pain on your way off this mortal coil.

If you think we're barbarians, just wait.

[Rock Tonic Juice Magic]

FREE SADDAM

[Busyman]

Give him to Iraqi justice. The crimes he committed were against his own people. Who the hell is the US to actually judge him. I understand that he committed crimes in an international setting also (the invasion of Kuwait), so is that the reason to have an international trial? I say America needs to be fair with the country we were so called helping and screw the international trial option.

Many of those countries didn't want to help remove him from power anyway so they should just STFU!!

By the way I don't think my country should have been there in the first place. Now many of our and Britain's soldiers are sitting ducks. (for WMD's that so far aren't there)

[hobbes]

Originally posted by bigboab+15 December 2003 - 15:52--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bigboab &#064; 15 December 2003 - 15:52)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-tralalala@15 December 2003 - 14:46
he is the one and only leader in the world that used chemical weapons against innocent people since world war 2&#33;&#33;&#33;

What do you consider Agent Orange to be tralalala?[/b][/quote]
Agent Orange is a herbicide. The intent, when dropped, was to kill plants not people. Its&#39; carcinogenic and teratogenic side effects were not known at the time.

Americans and Vietnamese were both exposed to the chemical, in fact, many Vietnam Vets still get yearly check-ups related to their exposure.

The active chemicals in Agent Orange are part of the dioxin family. Dioxins are deadly but this was not recognized until after the Vietnam war. In fact, in 1982 the government had to buy out Times Beach, Missouri because of dioxin contamination. It stands today, a ghost town.


So to compare dropping a known herbicide for this purpose versus using chemical agents for the specific purpose of instantaneous death is more than a bit harsh.

And yes, the US should pay the Vietnamese reparations for the unforseen, but very real long term effects of Agent Orange, it is the right thing to do.

[mustangchang]

Originally posted by hobbes+16 December 2003 - 01:17--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (hobbes @ 16 December 2003 - 01:17)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Originally posted by bigboab@15 December 2003 - 15:52
<!--QuoteBegin-tralalala

@15 December 2003 - 14:46
he is the one and only leader in the world that used chemical weapons against innocent people since world war 2&#33;&#33;&#33;

What do you consider Agent Orange to be tralalala?

Agent Orange is a herbicide. The intent, when dropped, was to kill plants not people. Its&#39; carcinogenic and teratogenic side effects were not known at the time.

Americans and Vietnamese were both exposed to the chemical, in fact, many Vietnam Vets still get yearly check-ups related to their exposure.

The active chemicals in Agent Orange are part of the dioxin family. Dioxins are deadly but this was not recognized until after the Vietnam war. In fact, in 1982 the government had to buy out Times Beach, Missouri because of dioxin contamination. It stands today, a ghost town.


So to compare dropping a known herbicide for this purpose versus using chemical agents for the specific purpose of instantaneous death is more than a bit harsh.

And yes, the US should pay the Vietnamese reparations for the unforseen, but very real long term effects of Agent Orange, it is the right thing to do. [/b][/quote]
hahahahaha everybody should get reparations shouldn&#39;t they lol.
As a matter of fact I just heard on the news that mail men that have been bitten by a dog in the last 40 years can pick up there reparations at their local bank lol give me a brake, your nuts dude

[Alex H]

@tarantula - There have been a few nasty guys in the last 50 years, Saddam is just up there with the worst of them.

In 1945, the United States and other Allies developed the Agreement for the Prosecution and Punishment of the Major War Criminals of the European Axis and Charter of the International Military Tribunal (IMT), sitting at Nuremberg, which contained the following definition of crimes against humanity in Article 6&copy;:

Crimes against humanity: murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against civilian populations, before or during the war; or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.

Source - Crimes Against Humanity by Cherif Bassiouni

I don&#39;t think the Iraqi people are capable of objective reasoning in this case. A fair trial must have objective reasoning. The UN should be given juristiction over Saddam&#39;s trial.

And I&#39;ve noticed people saying he is "crazy". There is a big difference between sociopathic and insane. Sociopathic people are unable to empathise with other people and consequently relate to them in a very unsociable way.

Insane on the other hand is defined thus:

insane [ın&#39;seın]
adjective
1 a mentally deranged; crazy; of unsound mind
b (as collective n; preceded by the)
example: the insane

2 characteristic of a person of unsound mind
example: an insane stare

3 irresponsible; very foolish; stupid
in&#39;sanely adverb(ial)
in&#39;saneness noun


People can exhibit sociopathic behaviors without being totally insane. In fact:

A more severe allegation, however, comes from six senior U.S. professors, and whom some executives would consider friends - that a fair number of CEOs are sociopaths. The Academy of Management held a roundtable discussion with the subject, "What should be done about CEO pay?" The professors used research that suggests that 5 our of every 100 people in the same profession are sociopathic.

CEOGO

(Personally I think he should be shot at the next available dawn, but I&#39;m prepared to let go of my bloodlust in exchange for living in a civilized world).

[hobbes]

Originally posted by mustangchang@16 December 2003 - 02:30
hahahahaha everybody should get reparations shouldn&#39;t they lol.
As a matter of fact I just heard on the news that mail men that have been bitten by a dog in the last 40 years can pick up there reparations at their local bank lol give me a brake, your nuts dude

Sometimes when people contribute to a discussion they add their "2 cents", you, my friend, just added "no sense".

But I guess you are just being consistent with your signature, although I&#39;m not sure that "synical" is an English word. It may, however; have a very special meaning in your made up language.

I really appreciate the obvious amount of time and effort you put into such a well informed, tightly written and poignant response. It made me stop and reflect upon my life. What a nugget of genius you have bestowed upon us all. Thanks.

May I direct you toward the Lounge?

[Snee]

Originally posted by hobbes@16 December 2003 - 02:17
Agent Orange is a herbicide.&nbsp; The intent, when dropped, was to kill plants not people.&nbsp; Its&#39; carcinogenic and teratogenic side effects were not known at the time.

This puts my opinion to shame, Agent Orange, was indeed not intended as a weapon. My support of the classification is thus officially withdrawn.

And I&#39;d like to add that you sir, are on fire tonight.

Sometimes when people contribute to a discussion they add their "2 cents", you, my friend, just added "no sense".