Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm stating that if he is being charged with war crimes, or crimes against humanity an iraqi kangaroo court is a dumb place to try him and the ICC is the appropriate place.
Do the Iraqis not have the right to try their own criminals?
What would have happened if we didn't? That is the question. It's like the man who comes home to see his wife still in bed and the house overrun with mess and the kids tearing up everything. He looks at his wife and she says ---"remember when you come home and ask me what I did all day? Well today I didn't do it."
If Bush had done nothing what would have happened? I don't think you really want to know. Saddam was protecting terrorists if nothing else. Should America have done nothing and sit back to see what would happen? I guess our government can take that position and to some degree Obama is so we will just wait to see what happens.
I'll ask again and maybe you will respond with an answer and not another question.
The Iraqi's had no right to try and sentence Saddam?
Depends on whether international courts had the opportunity to do so as well. When you INVADE a country to nab a dude then you kind of blow your "state sovereignty" excuse. It also depends on the validity of the puppet government a nation sets in place.
It is very difficult to gauge justice when the jury is biased, isn't it?
Now, how about you answer the question from the previous post. Are there other nations that he had committed crimes against, or only the Iraqis. In the case that you do believe this, do you think those groups should have had the opportunity to seek justice as well?
We did not hang Saddam. An Iraqi court tried him and sentenced him to death.
Do you have a problem with what an Iraqi court did? Should we have tried him? If we had would we then be hearing complaints that we didn't let Iraq handle it?
Depends on whether international courts had the opportunity to do so as well. When you INVADE a country to nab a dude then you kind of blow your "state sovereignty" excuse. It also depends on the validity of the puppet government a nation sets in place.
It is very difficult to gauge justice when the jury is biased, isn't it?
Now, how about you answer the question from the previous post. Are there other nations that he had committed crimes against, or only the Iraqis. In the case that you do believe this, do you think those groups should have had the opportunity to seek justice as well?
Iraqi's can try their own, just as we do here.
The rest of your post is secondary to that fact or arguing the hypothetical for the sake of it.
We did not hang Saddam. An Iraqi court tried him and sentenced him to death.
An Iraqi court system and government that was built on the premise of him being a criminal, represents the majority (and now winning) populace in the Shia-Sunni tussle (throw in Kurds as well)... only a simpleton would expect a different outcome. What was our involvement though? Nothing?
Many of the criminal acts he was charged with, weren't a big deal for Reagan when he was actually committing them. May be that is why WE didn't hang him and had no role to play in it?
Did Saddam commit crimes against other countries, or not?
None of this is a hypothetical, in which case I would like you to point it out instead of being intellectually dishonest per the usual.
I answered it, maybe you don't understand so well?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.