First he says that he will guarantee a free and fair public trial for
Saddam.

And then he says that Saddam deserves to executed.

Whatever happened to the formality of due process and the precept that one
is considered innocent until proven guilty?

"Schizoid Man" wrote in message ...
First he says that he will guarantee a free and fair public trial for
Saddam.

And then he says that Saddam deserves to executed.

Whatever happened to the formality of due process and the precept that one
is considered innocent until proven guilty?

Bush won't be the presiding judge nor be a member of the jury,
moron...

You think Saddam's gonna get off on a technicality? Or that his lawyer
is gonna successfully play the "race card?"

Man, you socialists stick together until the bitter end, don't you?

Schizoid Man wrote in message
...
First he says that he will guarantee a free and fair public trial for
Saddam.

And then he says that Saddam deserves to executed.

Whatever happened to the formality of due process and the precept that one
is considered innocent until proven guilty?




Do YOU think he should be executed. I sure as hell do. Mustard gas him.
That's what I say. Do the same to Moore, too. He's a big ass. Two less
assholes on the planet.

For such grotesque crimes against humanity, there should be no trial. Why
should we waste money on a trial? How in the world could he be found not
guilty?

I got a better one for ya. Put him in the California state prison system. He
wouldn't last a day.

I just want someone to make it clear to me. What is this mystical "lie" that
the dildocrats (I like that one!) keep on bringing up? "We went to war based
on a lie!" What are you talking about? Call me stupid.....(how many is THAT
going to bring up), but I just don't get it.


Oh wait...there are no WMD's. Saddam never hurt anyone. He's a good guy. He
never helped any terrorists. That's it. He was never a threat to our
national security. Ok. I get it now.

"Dave" wrote in message
Schizoid Man wrote in message

Do YOU think he should be executed. I sure as hell do. Mustard gas him.
That's what I say. Do the same to Moore, too. He's a big ass. Two less
assholes on the planet.


Yes, he should be face whatever penalty he gets after he's tried for his
crimes against humanity. And if he gets the death penalty, then it's good
riddance.


For such grotesque crimes against humanity, there should be no trial. Why
should we waste money on a trial? How in the world could he be found not
guilty?


Even Adolf Eichmann got a trial. So did the Nazis at Nuremberg. If you catch
him and shoot him without a "fair" trial, how are your actions any different
from his? I'm not disputing that he might be found innocent. There is no
chance of that. But at least we give him the benefit and dignity of a trial,
which was a lot better than what he gave his victims. Which is what
separates us from the likes of him. If we did just shoot him, how would that
makes us any different from him? Apart from the fact that you think you're
on the right side alongwith Divinity.


I got a better one for ya. Put him in the California state prison system.
He
wouldn't last a day.


No one said he was a fearsome warrior. He's a true dictator. His interests
are power, money and self-preservation.


I just want someone to make it clear to me. What is this mystical "lie"
that
the dildocrats (I like that one!) keep on bringing up? "We went to war
based
on a lie!" What are you talking about? Call me stupid.....(how many is
THAT
going to bring up), but I just don't get it.


No one disputes that he was a bloodthirsty tyrant. What people dispute is
the reason we went in.WMDs, for one. How many have been found in Iraq? In
case, your counter is a little off, allow me... none. Not one. So if he had
no WMDs (allow me a little latitude, here) then how was he an imminent
threat?

His links to al-Qaeda and Osama are tenuous at best. In fact, prior to the
war Iraq was easily the most secular Arab country, largely due to his
administration. So there is very little ideological overlap with his
organization and the religious fanatics of al-Qaeda. One is driven by the
lust for power, the other by sheer madness.

And if the reasons are pure altruism, then why are half the governments in
Africa and Asia in power? Why did President Bush recently warn Taiwan
against holding a democratic referendum? Whatever happened to promoting our
doctrine of freedom and democracry around the world?

All I am saying is that our policy needs to be consistent, that's all. I
have no doubt that Iraq will be a much better place 5 years from now because
he's no longer around.


Oh wait...there are no WMD's. Saddam never hurt anyone. He's a good guy.
He
never helped any terrorists. That's it. He was never a threat to our
national security. Ok. I get it now.


Yes, he did hurt millions. Of his own people. The argument here is that so
did Pol Pot, Noriega, Pinochet and the Shah of Iran. Where was this display
of altruism then? In fact, where was this altruism when Musharraf, erstwhile
president of strategic ally Pakistan, came to power in a bloodless coup?

No one batted an eyelid when we invaded Afghanistan to topple the Taliban
and al-Qaeda and to catch, or better yet kill, Osama. He hurt us. Directly.
The question in this case is whether Saddam ever intended to attack or
conspire to attack us directly. Not whether he was a savage thug, because
there is no doubt of that.

My two cents.

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 02:14:35 GMT, "Schizoid Man" wrote:

Oh wait...there are no WMD's. Saddam never hurt anyone. He's a good guy.
He
never helped any terrorists. That's it. He was never a threat to our
national security. Ok. I get it now.


Yes, he did hurt millions. Of his own people. The argument here is that so
did Pol Pot, Noriega, Pinochet and the Shah of Iran. Where was this display
of altruism then? In fact, where was this altruism when Musharraf, erstwhile
president of strategic ally Pakistan, came to power in a bloodless coup?

No one batted an eyelid when we invaded Afghanistan to topple the Taliban
and al-Qaeda and to catch, or better yet kill, Osama. He hurt us. Directly.
The question in this case is whether Saddam ever intended to attack or
conspire to attack us directly. Not whether he was a savage thug, because
there is no doubt of that.

My two cents.

And, lest we not forget, it's likely that the reason he wasn't toppled
from within, is because of the sanctions that kept the people (and
hence the opposition) weak and totally reliant on Hussein. And yes, we
can lay the blame for that squarely at President Clinton's door (of
course, he was maintaining the previous policy, but still...)

It's also the main reason that Castro's still in power.

Schizoid Man a écrit :
"Dave" wrote in message

Schizoid Man wrote in message


Do YOU think he should be executed. I sure as hell do. Mustard gas him.
That's what I say. Do the same to Moore, too. He's a big ass. Two less
assholes on the planet.



Yes, he should be face whatever penalty he gets after he's tried for his
crimes against humanity. And if he gets the death penalty, then it's good
riddance.



For such grotesque crimes against humanity, there should be no trial. Why
should we waste money on a trial? How in the world could he be found not
guilty?



Even Adolf Eichmann got a trial. So did the Nazis at Nuremberg. If you catch
him and shoot him without a "fair" trial, how are your actions any different
from his? I'm not disputing that he might be found innocent. There is no
chance of that. But at least we give him the benefit and dignity of a trial,
which was a lot better than what he gave his victims. Which is what
separates us from the likes of him. If we did just shoot him, how would that
makes us any different from him? Apart from the fact that you think you're
on the right side alongwith Divinity.



I got a better one for ya. Put him in the California state prison system.

He

wouldn't last a day.



No one said he was a fearsome warrior. He's a true dictator. His interests
are power, money and self-preservation.



I just want someone to make it clear to me. What is this mystical "lie"

that

the dildocrats (I like that one!) keep on bringing up? "We went to war

based

on a lie!" What are you talking about? Call me stupid.....(how many is

THAT

going to bring up), but I just don't get it.



No one disputes that he was a bloodthirsty tyrant. What people dispute is
the reason we went in.WMDs, for one. How many have been found in Iraq? In
case, your counter is a little off, allow me... none. Not one. So if he had
no WMDs (allow me a little latitude, here) then how was he an imminent
threat?

His links to al-Qaeda and Osama are tenuous at best. In fact, prior to the
war Iraq was easily the most secular Arab country, largely due to his
administration. So there is very little ideological overlap with his
organization and the religious fanatics of al-Qaeda. One is driven by the
lust for power, the other by sheer madness.

And if the reasons are pure altruism, then why are half the governments in
Africa and Asia in power? Why did President Bush recently warn Taiwan
against holding a democratic referendum? Whatever happened to promoting our
doctrine of freedom and democracry around the world?

All I am saying is that our policy needs to be consistent, that's all. I
have no doubt that Iraq will be a much better place 5 years from now because
he's no longer around.



Oh wait...there are no WMD's. Saddam never hurt anyone. He's a good guy.

He

never helped any terrorists. That's it. He was never a threat to our
national security. Ok. I get it now.



Yes, he did hurt millions. Of his own people. The argument here is that so
did Pol Pot, Noriega, Pinochet and the Shah of Iran. Where was this display
of altruism then? In fact, where was this altruism when Musharraf, erstwhile
president of strategic ally Pakistan, came to power in a bloodless coup?

No one batted an eyelid when we invaded Afghanistan to topple the Taliban
and al-Qaeda and to catch, or better yet kill, Osama. He hurt us. Directly.
The question in this case is whether Saddam ever intended to attack or
conspire to attack us directly. Not whether he was a savage thug, because
there is no doubt of that.

My two cents.



George W. Bush & his team have introduced a new concept for a
"democracy" : the large scale *lie*.
Now every time you put the question "Where are the WMD" to one of his
adept, he immediatly answer "We catch Saddam, and Saddam was a monster".
If you insist with your question you suddenly become a suspected Saddam
apologist and they make a fool of you. Our RAO's George also apply the
this strategy : I'm a well known "Kroopologist" ;-) and by the way I am
suspected of all the crimes :-(.
Bush, Blair lied to the American congress, to UN, to the world... but
they don't care about the consequences of the lie, because they say that
the most important was to catch Saddam...
You cannot fight a tyran using the same weapons than him...

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 02:14:35 GMT, "Schizoid Man" wrote:

Oh wait...there are no WMD's. Saddam never hurt anyone. He's a good
guy.
He
never helped any terrorists. That's it. He was never a threat to our
national security. Ok. I get it now.


Yes, he did hurt millions. Of his own people. The argument here is that
so
did Pol Pot, Noriega, Pinochet and the Shah of Iran. Where was this
display
of altruism then? In fact, where was this altruism when Musharraf,
erstwhile
president of strategic ally Pakistan, came to power in a bloodless coup?

No one batted an eyelid when we invaded Afghanistan to topple the Taliban
and al-Qaeda and to catch, or better yet kill, Osama. He hurt us.
Directly.
The question in this case is whether Saddam ever intended to attack or
conspire to attack us directly. Not whether he was a savage thug, because
there is no doubt of that.

My two cents.

And, lest we not forget, it's likely that the reason he wasn't toppled
from within, is because of the sanctions that kept the people (and
hence the opposition) weak and totally reliant on Hussein.

No, the reason is he kept killing them. He spent the money from the oil for
food program on palaces.

And yes, we
can lay the blame for that squarely at President Clinton's door (of
course, he was maintaining the previous policy, but still...)

It's also the main reason that Castro's still in power.

Hmmm, I thought it was that he kills or jails dissenters and there is strict
gun control.

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 15:14:06 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

And, lest we not forget, it's likely that the reason he wasn't toppled
from within, is because of the sanctions that kept the people (and
hence the opposition) weak and totally reliant on Hussein.

No, the reason is he kept killing them. He spent the money from the oil for
food program on palaces.

Actually, Iraq had one of the most efficient food programs on the
planet. And Hussein was able to maintain that stranglehold because of
the sanctions. The sanctions actually weakened the ability of
opposition groups to gain a foothold.

And yes, we
can lay the blame for that squarely at President Clinton's door (of
course, he was maintaining the previous policy, but still...)

It's also the main reason that Castro's still in power.

Hmmm, I thought it was that he kills or jails dissenters and there is strict
gun control.

Yes, that's the coloring book interpretation.

BTW, I know all about jailing dissidents (Raul Rivero, et. al) but do
you have any cites about "killing dissenters"? Or will we get another
retraction?

Sanctions ironically normally only help the regimes maintain control,
not the people that they are intended to help.

In article ,
dave weil wrote:

On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 15:14:06 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

And, lest we not forget, it's likely that the reason he wasn't toppled
from within, is because of the sanctions that kept the people (and
hence the opposition) weak and totally reliant on Hussein.

No, the reason is he kept killing them. He spent the money from the oil for
food program on palaces.

Actually, Iraq had one of the most efficient food programs on the
planet. And Hussein was able to maintain that stranglehold because of
the sanctions. The sanctions actually weakened the ability of
opposition groups to gain a foothold.

And yes, we
can lay the blame for that squarely at President Clinton's door (of
course, he was maintaining the previous policy, but still...)

It's also the main reason that Castro's still in power.

Hmmm, I thought it was that he kills or jails dissenters and there is strict
gun control.

Yes, that's the coloring book interpretation.

What was Iraqi gun control like?

Stephen

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 19 Dec 2003 15:14:06 -0800, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

And, lest we not forget, it's likely that the reason he wasn't toppled
from within, is because of the sanctions that kept the people (and
hence the opposition) weak and totally reliant on Hussein.

No, the reason is he kept killing them. He spent the money from the oil
for
food program on palaces.

Actually, Iraq had one of the most efficient food programs on the
planet. And Hussein was able to maintain that stranglehold because of
the sanctions. The sanctions actually weakened the ability of
opposition groups to gain a foothold.

And yes, we
can lay the blame for that squarely at President Clinton's door (of
course, he was maintaining the previous policy, but still...)

It's also the main reason that Castro's still in power.

Hmmm, I thought it was that he kills or jails dissenters and there is
strict
gun control.

Yes, that's the coloring book interpretation.

BTW, I know all about jailing dissidents (Raul Rivero, et. al) but do
you have any cites about "killing dissenters"? Or will we get another
retraction?

Sanctions ironically normally only help the regimes maintain control,
not the people that they are intended to help.

Why were the sanctions put in place?