What a load of ...

I really doubt that he'll be getting much of a fair trial no matter where he goes! Especially in the US, he's definately screwed.

 

There is no way that he should be tried in a US court under US law, and I doubt that he will be. There is also no way that he's going to get anything remotely resembling a "fair" trial, and and to be honest, I have trouble finding tears for him. Let's face it, Saddam Hussein is not exactly Mr. Nice Guy. Regardless of any facts such as the U.S aidng his dictatorship by selling him weapons and whatnot, the guy was still a brutal dictator, and I hope he gets what's coming to him. It's just a shame that Bush is going to use this to buy 4 more years in the white house, though.

 

Let's just hope against all hope that Bush does not get another 4 years as the president...

 

"Brutal dictator, liar, deceiver and murder" and "fair trial". Nice. He cannot be trusted to speak truth under oath. So what? So this part can be dispensed with. Right? What's next? Perhaps there's some evidence missing, but then it's pretty obvious, so why bother getting evidence? He didn't let inspectors in, so must have had WMD. He would have let them in if he didn't have WMD, wouldn't he?

News: no matter what, he didn't start the war.

The logic used to lend credit to opposite points is simple:

9/11 was an act of war against the US

AND it was committed by terrorists

ERGO: terrorists committed an act of war against the US

ERGO: terrorists started war against the US

AND Saddam had ties with terrorists

ERGO: Saddam was on war with the US, anyway

ERGO: The invasion is his fault and his guilt. In legal sense.

Unbeatable, isn't it?

 

Right....him coming from the highest death penalty state in the country (along with Florida)...you can bet it's important to him. (Better have a drool bucket ready on that day.)

 

No, the logic flows like this:

9/11 was an act of war against the US

AND it was committed by terrorists

ERGO: terrorists committed an act of war against the US

ERGO: terrorists started war against the US

AND these terrorists proclaimed their commitment to wreaking further death and destruction

AND these terrorists plotted to procure WMD for that purpose

AND only three countries in the world both opposed the US and were constructing WMD

AND those countries were Iraq, Iran, and North Korea

ERGO: the likeliest way for terrorists at war with the US to acquire WMD was from these countries that already opposed the US

ERGO: a necessity in the war on terror was to neutralize these three sources of WMD

ERGO: North Korea could be neutralized by its neighbors and Iran could be neutralized by the IAEA, but Iraq refused to be neutralized by the UN

ERGO: war with Iraq was a necessary step to block terrorists from acquiring WMD.

I love the word ergo! It's so ergonomic!

 

Yes, Bush is turning this into a media circus himself. He's trying to milk as much political mileage as he can out of all this. Believe me, some of us here are working really hard to get this guy out of office. Still, I've said over and over again on this board, the mainstream media is solidly behind almost everything this guy does. And that has been the most difficult part of all this. Real debate has been muted in very real and unexpected ways. Everything Shrub puts on is a media extravaganza and it seems there's no end in sight.

Some of us knew that the capture of Saddam would help Shrub. Hell, it took long enough. But the media here has gone wild over this thing. I feel like I'm in Munchkin Land, with everyone singing a chrous of "Ding Dong the Witch is Dead." Maybe I am in Oz, and sometime soon I'll wake up in the real America again.

[ December 16, 2003, 07:09: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

I think that if Bush gains another 4-year endowment from the American people, we will see, during that time, some more concrete action taken against NK. Much of the US rapid deployment elite forces are engaged in Afganistan and Iraq...do we go after NK now with National Guard?

I also think that it will be carefully done concurrent with a strengthening of relations between the US, Japan and PRC...I mean who are Kim's missiles a greater threat to, anyway? I believe current intel shows them a threat to the mainland of Alaska and maybe NW US. Perhaps we may see US and Chinese forces acting together to bring an end to this renagade regime.

 

You mean 4 more wars? I can hardly wait...

 

Political pitch? I'd say, What the article doesn't mention is that later in that press conference he raises his fist and says "on to 2004!" or words to that effect, bowed his head and held up his hands as if to stem the applause - except there wasn't any, just a cough or two. As his eyes peeked up under raised eyebrows from his bowed head , the awkward moment passed and he went on to select another reporter for more questions.

The timing of this capture is just too coincidental to the polical events over the past few days, imo. It wouldn't surprise me at all if they knew exactly where Saddam was hiding for weeks, but waited to do the unveiling at a time that would give Bush maximum political effect.

 

[snip]

"Saddam was being hidden until just the right time!" Give me a break. Bush could've used his capture months ago. There's nothing opportune about this particular time. If anything it would've been better to wait and take some of the spotlight off of the Democractic primaries.

Yeah, Tal. "Last resort." Just like in Iraq we waited until nearly twenty resolutions had been passed and over a year after we said "this is your last chance."

Yeah, Chandos. Four more wars sounds fine to me if it ends up with the country more safe. Oh, do you believe in fighting to defend your country?

[Warning pending.] -Tal

[ December 16, 2003, 19:46: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

 

Whatever happened to "Made for Lovin'?"

 

Absolutely. Wars of aggression are a different matter.

 

Shrub didn't: http://awol.gq.nu/4dawol.htm

 

Shralp -- fighting to defend our country against WHAT? Perceived threats, hearsay, some old man in a rat hole? For god's sake....those things exist all over the world! Are you saying we should invade every country that gives the slightest indication that they are pro-terrorist??? That's purely ludicrous (unless you're into the Bush flavor of world domination...oh, and the resulting world peace that would come of it,of course.

 

There absolutely will be further military conflict, especially if Bush gets re-elected, which is almost a certainty. Short list of countries (in no particular order):

Syria, Iran, North Korea

What many people don't understand is that Iraq is just a starting point. Bush wants to "spread democracy" across the Middle East, by force if necessary. Afghanistan and Iraq were the first, but most likely not the last.

 

You were joking right? The US has been involved in Afghanistan for the last 30 odd years.