As many of you probably know, the trial for the former dictator of Iraq, Saddam, was started a couple of days ago. I would like to know your opinions on the case and what it would mean for the world.
Here is one of the many articles that were written about it:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SADDAM_THEN__NOW_IQ1?SITE=NJBRU&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
More info on the trial:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ?SITE=NJBRU&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
And yet more info:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/SADDAM_TRIAL_JUDGE?SITE=NJBRU&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
I could list several more links, but i think that that is enough. 
I heard that his trial is being moved into a later date. His lawyers asked the judge to be moved to a later date. Saddam still thinks he is not guilty.
i belive that he should be found guilty cause the madman took lives of many loved ones and i find him a kind of hitler cause how hitler killed people in his own religion cause they were that. And here is Sadam killing his own citizens. So yeah he should be found guilty.
And the just penalty for using WMDs on your own people is what?
I think he is a good leader.
A real good leader.
If you say that he is not a good leader,just have a look at the people of his country now live in
Does the new constitution of Iraq include deathpenalty? I hope not.
It seems kind of odd to me that he is being tried under a set of laws established by America after we went in and kicked him out. If this were occuring to another country, that doesn't describe itself as the "home of freedom", we might take another look at the legitimacy of the whole thing.
I think he should be brought to trial, sure, but under a set of laws established by the Iraqi people and at a date when the court is functioning on its own without major input and help from the American government.
I can understand his defense team's point that argues not "Saddam didn't do what you are accusing him of" but instead "this court is a sham and shouldn't have the authority to proceed in this case".
| 52tease wrote: |
It seems kind of odd to me that he is being tried under a set of laws established by America after we went in and kicked him out..
..... |
What are the exact charges?? Maybe I'm confused, but is (was?) murder legal in Iraq? | yupeng wrote: |
I think he is a good leader.
A real good leader.
If you say that he is not a good leader,just have a look at the people of his country now live in |
Let me be the first... he is not a good leader. Now I'm looking at the mass graves, the rape rooms, and all the other shit he did. Let me rethink my assessment; yep, he is not a good leader. | 52tease wrote: |
It seems kind of odd to me that he is being tried under a set of laws established by America after we went in and kicked him out. If this were occuring to another country, that doesn't describe itself as the "home of freedom", we might take another look at the legitimacy of the whole thing.
I think he should be brought to trial, sure, but under a set of laws established by the Iraqi people and at a date when the court is functioning on its own without major input and help from the American government. ". |
I think so,and it seem the thing was done by American.I think Saddam will not a get a good process because of all the thing he has done, what we know already from Hussein. I hope for the rest of his live, he will say to to the judge that he is quilty on killing people wihout reason.
| yupeng wrote: |
I think he is a good leader.
A real good leader.
If you say that he is not a good leader,just have a look at the people of his country now live in |
Im guessing that hes trying to refer to his leadership skills, kinda like Hitler, who was a very good leader (NOT saying that he was a good person).
Iraq does have the death penalty and if you would have read the article, you would have seen that. | herbz3 wrote: |
| Im guessing that hes trying to refer to his leadership skills, kinda like Hitler, who was a very good leader |
You couldn't be more wrong. None of the great leaders killed their own people, at all.The only time the US gov't kills someone is when they enforce the death penalty (which I'm all for). A leader should do things for the advancement of his/her people, not kill them and subject them to poverty, disgrace, and suffering. Not to mention subject them to immoral shame, oh wait, those with any shame were killed.
Hitler was a good leader up until the killing began, he gained the support of a country then brainwashed them into thinking genocide was right. That's not a good leader that's a good liar.
Yupeng, if you think Saddam was a good leader, you're an idiot.
I apologize for the single flame, but not sincerely, note i said "if".just sayin.... I was trying to clarify what the other guy might have been trying to say..
If anyone finds any other relevant articles to this topic, please feel free to post them. | 52tease wrote: |
| I can understand his defense team's point that argues not "Saddam didn't do what you are accusing him of" but instead "this court is a sham and shouldn't have the authority to proceed in this case". |
Since when does that stop anybody? WWII in the Pacific: US kills MILLIONS of Japanese civilians with Napalm and A-Bombs, Japan executes POW's.
The Japanese get tried for war crimes, but the US was "justified."
Might makes right, and Saddam will get what he has coming. | ocalhoun wrote: |
| 52tease wrote: | | I can understand his defense team's point that argues not "Saddam didn't do what you are accusing him of" but instead "this court is a sham and shouldn't have the authority to proceed in this case". |
Since when does that stop anybody? WWII in the Pacific: US kills MILLIONS of Japanese civilians with Napalm and A-Bombs, Japan executes POW's.
The Japanese get tried for war crimes, but the US was "justified."
Might makes right, and Saddam will get what he has coming. |
Millions??
I heard that, what ever the number was, it would have been much MUCH higher if we didn't nuke the crap out of them. They had the entire country ready to die for the cause.
As for justification, they started it, we finished it. With athority.Isn't Saddam just really the excuse that the Coalition needed to invade Iraq? This means that since no weapons of massdesctruction was ever found the coalition must make sure that Saddam is found guilty. However, idf the court was accused of being pro-coalition the ruling would not gain international acceptance, and thus the goal not reached. I belive the coalition is doing ist outmost to make sure that the court will be considered independent.
Sure, Saddam ruled his country as a dictator, and committed some terrible crimes in doing so, but wasn't this so when the US suppotred him?
the reason why the US invaded Iraq's not because they want Saddam to be on trial...it's Bush's reason to end the war that his father started!
and don't you find it weird when they are bombing Afghanistan left, right and center and when they can't find Osama, they decided to find Saddam instead 'cos he's an easier target. The whole Weapons of Mass Destruction thing is a big scam to trick the world into believing they are doing the right thing. Where are the real WMDs now? North Korea?
We all know that if bush was allowed to stay in office he would go on a whole axis of evil war thing, blowing up every and all countries that we even have a grudge against....
just to let you know, i was one of the people who said that they would move out of the country if bush was re-elected.....
| Herbz3 wrote: |
We all know that if bush was allowed to stay in office he would go on a whole axis of evil war thing, blowing up every and all countries that we even have a grudge against....
just to let you know, i was one of the people who said that they would move out of the country if bush was re-elected..... |
You still here? Need a loan for a bus trip up to Canada for your free health care? 
| Quote: |
| the reason why the US invaded Iraq's not because they want Saddam to be on trial...it's Bush's reason to end the war that his father started! |
2003 called, they want their lame-ass tin-foil hat excuse #47 back.
There has been MUCH progress in Iraq in the reletively short time that Sadam has been out of power. As a simple example, a woman reporter return to Iraq after a three year absence. She saw a woman from her previous trip walking five feet in front of her husband,on her last visit women were only aloud to walk behind the husband. The reporter was delighted but still surprised to see how fast the old ways had changed. The reporter asked the woman how this happened in such a short period of time and the woman replied "land mines"
This may be part of the reason they like to have more than one wife. 
Last edited by Billy Hill on Thu Oct 27, 2005 12:28 am; edited 1 time in totalIt is interesting to note that Bush Sr. was involved in supplying arms (and various other activities) to Saddam quite some time ago.
| SunburnedCactus wrote: |
| It is interesting to note that Bush Sr. was involved in supplying arms (and various other activities) to Saddam quite some time ago. |
Not that interesting, and not at all uncommon. There are many times when a country (or even person) helps another country (or person) , then that country (or person) turns on the country (or person) that helped them. It happens all the time and is nothing sensationalizable.Oh, I'm not implying it is news or anything shocking. This was just quite a well documented relationship, and is often overlooked in the great debate that surrounds the current issue.
| SunburnedCactus wrote: |
| Oh, I'm not implying it is news or anything shocking. This was just quite a well documented relationship, and is often overlooked in the great debate that surrounds the current issue. |
I'm not sure how it relates to the current issue.Well... It was about Saddam I suppose.
Ok, maybe a bit tenuous. Got a bit confused with a different post I was doing about George W Bush (feeble excuse).
| SunburnedCactus wrote: |
Well... It was about Saddam I suppose.
Ok, maybe a bit tenuous. Got a bit confused with a different post I was doing about George W Bush (feeble excuse). |
He's always available to be blamed for what ever you need. This trial has already a decision. It΄s a teather, not a trial.
| S3nd K3ys wrote: |
You still here? Need a loan for a bus trip up to Canada for your free health care? |
Nah, i thought about it and decided that canadas too cold.... 
Though Iraq might be a prime choice to move to... (cough)......
Last edited by Herbz3 on Tue Nov 01, 2005 3:11 am; edited 1 time in totalSaddam has to die! he killed alot of innocent people and did stupid this Very stupid things so i think they have to put him in jail for this i think this is the best option!
