PSX5Central
Non Gaming Discussions => Off-Topic => Topic started by: clips on April 01, 2004, 09:55:52 PM
-
i\'m surprised nobody posted about this yet. it seems whenever he goes to trial he already has somebody that wants to represent him...i can\'t figure out this cat\'s name but he\'s french. He was on cnn the other day and the cnn reporter asked him on what basis will you defend saddam.."he stated he would charge the u.s. with unlawful entry(something i stated way back in another thread ;) ) and that he would charge that there have been no wmds found & that the u.s. was one of iraqs biggest suppliers of wmds..
i stated somewhere in current events that if saddam actually went to trial & has a strong lawyer he could have a decent defense...forget all the liberation & such..just the facts..the u.s. went to war because saddam had wmds..still to this day..nothing!
the u.n. did not justify the u.s. going in..yeah some will say the u.n. has no backbone,..but still it would have looked better with the u.n. backing them.
and let\'s just call it for what it was..bush had a personal vendetta to squash with saddam since bush sr. invaded iraq..add to the fact the u.s. citizens wanted somebody to get bombed after 911 & there you have it...
but i will say he will probably get nailed for crimes such as gasing & killing his own people tho...thoughts?
-
He has no case. He has to answer to the Iraqi people first. They want to try him on their accord, not the UN\'s or America\'s.
-
/me wonder if a Mr D Rumsfeld will be up on charges for being an accomplice
:D
-
Originally posted by clips
the u.s. went to war because saddam had wmds..still to this day..nothing!
I wouldn\'t say that. My dad is in the reserves and works with WMDs. They are finding stuff. The media keeps putting nuclear weapons as WMDs and that is what we\'re looking for (which we really aren\'t). A WMD includes a truck bomb, chemical and biological weapons (which we\'ve been finding) and the means of deliverance of these weapons. That is what we are looking for and that is what we are finding. People just keep making WMDs more than they really are.
-
Originally posted by Titan
I wouldn\'t say that. My dad is in the reserves and works with WMDs. They are finding stuff. The media keeps putting nuclear weapons as WMDs and that is what we\'re looking for (which we really aren\'t). A WMD includes a truck bomb, chemical and biological weapons (which we\'ve been finding) and the means of deliverance of these weapons. That is what we are looking for and that is what we are finding. People just keep making WMDs more than they really are.
i\'m not gonna doubt your pops at all but if they are finding stuff, don\'t you think they would be reporting it? As much of an issue it is, any info regarding wmd\'s would be reported.
-
I guess the reason its not being reported is for a couple reasons. One would be that the public view of WMDs are nuclear weapons. Them turning up chemical and biological weapons wouldn\'t be classified as "WMDs" by the public. But WMDs mean different things to the government/military than the general public. When we went in for WMDs, we went in for chemical and biological weapons. I had another reason but I forgot it. I\'ll post it when I remember it.
EDIT: I remember my second point now. The media classifies WMDs also as nuclear weapons and things that make a big boom and really are misinterpreting what the government really is looking for.
-
Even if he\'s French, there\'s no way that he seriously wants to defend Saddam.. right?
It\'s just part of the justice system.
-
Originally posted by Blade
Even if he\'s French, there\'s no way that he seriously wants to defend Saddam.. right?
It\'s just part of the justice system.
so you\'re calling this cat saddam\'s public defender? If that\'s the case,..saddam doesn\'t stand a chance! :p public defender "uhm saddam..just plead guilty!" :p
-
Originally posted by Titan
I guess the reason its not being reported is for a couple reasons. One would be that the public view of WMDs are nuclear weapons. Them turning up chemical and biological weapons wouldn\'t be classified as "WMDs" by the public. But WMDs mean different things to the government/military than the general public. When we went in for WMDs, we went in for chemical and biological weapons. I had another reason but I forgot it. I\'ll post it when I remember it.
EDIT: I remember my second point now. The media classifies WMDs also as nuclear weapons and things that make a big boom and really are misinterpreting what the government really is looking for.
Yeah, it\'s all the medias fault. Damn that liberal media!!
Actually, If they had found anything, I\'m pretty sure GWB would of made a big deal about it and would of held a parade on it\'s honor. If a chemical/biological weapon was found...I think that is pretty much classified as "mass destruction" If they had found any, they would probably be like those they found that didn\'t have a chance of being used because they were so old...
I remember reading that Hussain\'s lawyer defended Nazi\'s and other terrorist. Wouln\'t it be funny, yet sad, if he actually wins the case and is set free?
-
10 bucks says that if he wins he lives in France for the rest of his life.
-
10 bucks says he\'ll be assasinated during the trial.
-
10 bucks says that about 5 minutes into the trial, Saddam lets out a loud one and snickers about it.
20 bucks says that everybody laughs, slowly but surely.
-
10 bucks he is let loose.
I have a strong feeling, that may happen. Why?
1) No WMD were found
2) He is not a terrorist
3) What America did, and is doing is wrong. Its their country, their dispute, their life, we shouldnt be butting heads with things that dont concern us.
-
^^^
True. Felt like that since the beginning. But...[robot mode] He is my president...must keep supporting[end robot mode]
Iraqi invasion wasn\'t needed. I\'m starting to think that Afghanistan was just a front to get to Hussain. I mean, we have completely forgotten about Osama, until he blows something up again that is.
And how are the wonder Iraqia repaying us for getting into something that wasn\'t our business, well it was probably business that GWB had with Hussain, they kill our troops and are pretty much shitting on us.
-
I don\'t think there\'s any chance he gets off. It would just make the politicians behind the entire Iraq operation look entirely too bad. Especially when you consider that we have a conservative majority in the Supreme Court, if it\'s tried there, and it is the conservatives that would look the worst were he to be released. The Supreme Court is not free of such considerations.
-
Correction...
Saddam WAS a terrorist...
-
Originally posted by Ashford
Correction...
Saddam WAS a terrorist...
Errrrr No he was a Dictator Not a Terrorist.
You see Ash… Terrorists tend to be the ones NOT in Power ;)
*uncle ooseven gets out the Big book of Madmen Definitions and leads nephewashford by the hand
-
Okay...
What is the definition of a terrorist?
Osama Bin Laden funded several attacks against America but didn\'t carry out a single one...
Saddam funded several Palestinian homicide bombers to kill Israelis...
Not a terrorist?
-
Osama did fight in the Afgan War against the Russians and was considered a Terrorist... He is the Leader of a International Terror network... He has no Political plans other than to wadge war on the west...
Definition = he\'s a Terrorist.
---------------
Saddam...seeked to gain political power through any means, he gain power in Iraq where he used brutal methods to keep and sometimes expand his power base....he has NO plans in sacrificing himself for any extreme Religious ideal.
Definition = he\'s a Dictator
-------------------
So by your definition anyone that funds a terror Organisation is also considered a terrorist ?
Good luck with that… because I suppose US BRIT’s could consider all them “Irish” NEW YORKERS that Funded the IRA during the 80’s and early 90’s as terrorists.
/me phones up Camp Delta and tells them to get some EXTRA room ready.
-
Originally posted by Titan
One would be that the public view of WMDs are nuclear weapons. Them turning up chemical and biological weapons wouldn\'t be classified as "WMDs" by the public. But WMDs mean different things to the government/military than the general public. When we went in for WMDs, we went in for chemical and biological weapons.
I think its worth mentioning that I have never heard Saddam\'s WMD referred to as nuclear weapons and not chemical/biological.
Still if ANYTHING was found it would be reported. At the very least Fox News would say something.
-
3) What America did, and is doing is wrong. Its their country, their dispute, their life, we shouldnt be butting heads with things that dont concern us.
It is their country, something horrible is going on in it, so does that mean we let people die cause it doesn\'t affect us? If some kid was being bullied, but you had never talked tot he kid in your life, would it be wrong to try and help? I don\'t think it would. I think that Bush may be going to Iraq for the oil, which is bad and maybe cause he doesn\'t like Saddam.
There\'s a difference between doing something wrong and doing something because of the wrong reason. Are you going to argue that saving millions of people\'s lives is wrong?
-
Originally posted by Black Samurai
I think its worth mentioning that I have never heard Saddam\'s WMD referred to as nuclear weapons and not chemical/biological.
Still if ANYTHING was found it would be reported. At the very least Fox News would say something.
They supposedly are finding a large surpluss of these chemical and biological weapons that it\'s probably not even worth reporting. Besides, remember what I said. The general public is believing that WMDs are nuclear weapons or something around those lines. And the media is what\'s telling the civilian population that. They don\'t believe that WMDs include chemical and biological weapons. The civilian population is not told what the soldiers are told. Civilian point of view is different than a soldiers.
-
Originally posted by cloud345
It is their country, something horrible is going on in it, so does that mean we let people die cause it doesn\'t affect us? If some kid was being bullied, but you had never talked tot he kid in your life, would it be wrong to try and help? I don\'t think it would. I think that Bush may be going to Iraq for the oil, which is bad and maybe cause he doesn\'t like Saddam.
There\'s a difference between doing something wrong and doing something because of the wrong reason. Are you going to argue that saving millions of people\'s lives is wrong?
So why arent we in numerous other countries doing the same thing? Why havent we before unless we had something to gain or a nice relationship with said country? Why wont we in the future either?
We only get involved when it serves us positively. Tons of shithole countries have problems with civilians being killed by the government for no good reason.
-
Originally posted by Titan
They supposedly are finding a large surpluss of these chemical and biological weapons that it\'s probably not even worth reporting. Besides, remember what I said. The general public is believing that WMDs are nuclear weapons or something around those lines. And the media is what\'s telling the civilian population that. They don\'t believe that WMDs include chemical and biological weapons. The civilian population is not told what the soldiers are told. Civilian point of view is different than a soldiers.
What a sec...lemme get this straight. They are finding LARGE amounts of shit....yet it isnt worth reporting???:screwy: I dont buy that at ALL. If they found sooo much it would certainly be all over the news. When they even think they find something its all over the air, even when it turns out to be nothing.
-
Originally posted by luckee
What a sec...lemme get this straight. They are finding LARGE amounts of shit....yet it isnt worth reporting???:screwy: I dont buy that at ALL. If they found sooo much it would certainly be all over the news. When they even think they find something its all over the air, even when it turns out to be nothing.
Excatly i mean the Bush Braodcasting Network...sorry Fox News would jump at the chance to stand up for their pay master ;).
-
Originally posted by GmanJoe
He has no case. He has to answer to the Iraqi people first. They want to try him on their accord, not the UN\'s or America\'s.
Not sure how I missed this comment.
I agree in a sense I think......
Technically, he should be tried by the iraqi ppl even if it means he would probably get off, which he would IMO. Isnt that how we do things in the good ol\' US of A? You commit murder in texas, strong armed robbery in Iowa, and you finally get caught raping some chick in Illinois. You would get tried in TX first....then IA..then IL. Unless they work together and run your charges concurent which would be extremely rare as when multi-charged criminals not always face concurent charges when everything was commited in the same state.
I have a feeling either the UN or us will try him first and that would just be wrong, even though he is who he is.
-
Originally posted by Titan
They supposedly are finding a large surpluss of these chemical and biological weapons that it\'s probably not even worth reporting.
Toothpaste and baking powder does not count.
-
Originally posted by Toxical
Toothpaste and baking powder does not count.
WTF? What are you talking about? Come up with something intelligent and repost.
-
What do you mean? what other WMD did the USA find in Iraq?
What did we find?
-
I guess you didn\'t read my WMD posts. Look for them and then say we didn\'t find them. I don\'t feel like posting it again for the 5th time. It is what the military thinks a WMD is.
-
Yeah but according to Bush a gallon of anti-freeze in a "Turkey Farm" is WMD ;)
-
Originally posted by Titan
I guess you didn\'t read my WMD posts. Look for them and then say we didn\'t find them. I don\'t feel like posting it again for the 5th time. It is what the military thinks a WMD is.
Hey well most of the citizens in this country aren\'t in the military. So what, are they just supposed to assume that they are finding the lost-and-never found WMD?
-
Originally posted by Toxical
Yeah but according to Bush a gallon of anti-freeze in a "Turkey Farm" is WMD ;)
Tell me when he said that. I want to hear a quote and see a link.
Originally posted by SirMystiq
Hey well most of the citizens in this country aren\'t in the military. So what, are they just supposed to assume that they are finding the lost-and-never found WMD?
The citizens probably don\'t know jack of what Saddam did so I don\'t think they\'d help in the WMD search. Plus, I find it comical that liberals and democrats are so impatient in the WMD search. Its been a year and Iraq isn\'t exactly a small country. There are thousands of square miles of sand to search. It will take time. I love it when after a week in the war, a Democrat congress man was quoted with saying "We\'ve been at war for a week, why haven\'t any WMDs been found yet?" I laughed my ass off.
-
The suicide boats that attacked the oil platforms were suspected of using a chemical explosion - rather than a conventional one. There is also suspicion that Saddam and his ex followers may have or are selling chemical weapons to these terrorists.
Since you can\'t see the WMD, they must not exist? I wouldn\'t bet on it. Thousands of gallons of various chemical weapons don\'t just disappear. They may not be in Iraq now, but I am sure Syria, Iran and/or the terrorists have what is left of the Iraqi arsenal.
-
The burden is on Bush to “produce” those WMD’s.
If Syria or Iran have Iraq’s WMD, then why did Bush use that as an excuse to invade Iraq?
I just don’t understand why we went to Iraq in the first place, weren’t we supposed to fight Terrorism?
Did we stop the terrorists already? No, we did not.. so why spend billions and time on something that will not get us anything in the fight against “terrorism”
I can see us going after camel-humpers in Afghanistan like Bin Laden….. but going after Saddam was just an excursion which served no anti-terrorist agenda.
I assume the real agenda was:
A) Stabilize the region for Saudi-Arabia and Israel.
B) Get one back for Sr. Bush and the republican Hawks.
If Bush invaded Iraq, then he might as well invade North Korea, I see no distinction between north Korea and Iraq.(The axis of “Evil”) Yet we walk on tip-toes around N.Korea, why? No Oil to export back to the father-land?
-
Originally posted by Toxical
The burden is on Bush to “produce” those WMD’s.
If Syria or Iran have Iraq’s WMD, then why did Bush use that as an excuse to invade Iraq?
I just don’t understand why we went to Iraq in the first place, weren’t we supposed to fight Terrorism?
Did we stop the terrorists already? No, we did not.. so why spend billions and time on something that will not get us anything in the fight against “terrorism”
I can see us going after camel-humpers in Afghanistan like Bin Laden….. but going after Saddam was just an excursion which served no anti-terrorist agenda.
I assume the real agenda was:
A) Stabilize the region for Saudi-Arabia and Israel.
B) Get one back for Sr. Bush and the republican Hawks.
If Bush invaded Iraq, then he might as well invade North Korea, I see no distinction between north Korea and Iraq.(The axis of “Evil”) Yet we walk on tip-toes around N.Korea, why? No Oil to export back to the father-land?
Let me make this a little more clear - Iraq has or had WMD\'s - when the war broke out he either sent them to Iran, Syria or gave them to terrorists.
Going after Saddam served no anti terrorist agenda? Explain why Saddam was harboring Abu Abbas? Explain the abandon terrorist camps that the Marines and our other armed forces have found in the country.
The whole blood for oil slogan has been disproven - if we were exporting the oil back here to the US why the hell am I paying over $2.00 a gallon for gas?!?!? Maybe because we aren\'t! Toxical, please come up with some factual information instead of political rhetoric.
-
off topic i know but..
$2 for a gallon of oil...
Try paying our prices in rip-off Britian :(
-
Originally posted by GigaShadow
Let me make this a little more clear - Iraq has or had WMD\'s - when the war broke out he either sent them to Iran, Syria or gave them to terrorists.
Going after Saddam served no anti terrorist agenda? Explain why Saddam was harboring Abu Abbas? Explain the abandon terrorist camps that the Marines and our other armed forces have found in the country.
The whole blood for oil slogan has been disproven - if we were exporting the oil back here to the US why the hell am I paying over $2.00 a gallon for gas?!?!? Maybe because we aren\'t! Toxical, please come up with some factual information instead of political rhetoric.
Your point about where the WMD went is just theory, you have no proof. I have no proof. At best we are both speculating
America harbored terrorists too before 9/11, they grabbed some air-planes and flew them into buildings. Should Saddam be responsible for any riffraff that is in his country? In that case Bush should be in jail..
Abu Abbas along with other Pals did some crazy ass things to draw attention to their cause, like shooting some old guy in a wheel-chair(though the old guy was probably causing shit, so he got shot), but I hardly see him in the same way as I see Bin-Laden and al-Qaeda.
Finding one retired old Palestinian militant in Iraq does not qualify as success in the fight against terrorism I think.
Your oil theory is rhetoric, the only reason the gas prices haven\'t gone down in price is because companies that produce gasoline haven’t got the inclination to lower the price. This is due to greed and maybe not enough refineries available to meet demand, but I’m betting it is the “greed” that wins out with big corporations.
-
Originally posted by Toxical
America harbored terrorists too before 9/11, they grabbed some air-planes and flew them into buildings. Should Saddam be responsible for any riffraff that is in his country? In that case Bush should be in jail..
Abu Abbas along with other Pals did some crazy ass things to draw attention to their cause, like shooting some old guy in a wheel-chair(though the old guy was probably causing shit, so he got shot), but I hardly see him in the same way as I see Bin-Laden and al-Qaeda.
You have just discredited yourself completely with those two paragraphs. We harbored terrorists... do you even know what the word harbored means - especially in the context you just used it in? The old guy deserved it, a guy in a wheel chair causing problems!?!?!
I am done debating this nitwit.