Iraq, from invasion to date

[Pongo]

Thats all just babble hortland.  You say that "I" would need a rediculous level of proof to accept that Iraq was involved in the WTC.
The truth is that you have accepted Iraq was involved with absolutly NO proof.

You say I accept links between Bush and varios entities with out any proof, but the proof is indeed there and not even contested. The vice president was the CEO of Harlibuton. No frothing from you can undue that.  What that means as far as the billions of no tender contracts that Halibutron has recieved from the war is open to interpretation, but the fact of the association is not.

The interesting thing about a Trial of Sadam is not that he would say anything new. Its just that those things will hit the main stream media for the first time. Many are undeniable and very troubleing.(except by you and your ilk)

He is obviosly going to be charged with invading other countries. He will be entiteld to defend him self on that.
He will be charged with actions agianst the Kurds and others. He will be able to introduce evidence that other coutries including the US do the same or worse as a matter of practice in anti insurgencey campaigns
He will be charged with torture and be entitled to show that it is again a matter of state perogitive to torture. A canadian was tortured in Saudi Jails for over a year.
Is he guilty and will he be convicted. Yes but his defence will be interesting and painful to some.

That was my point, not that I love the man or worship him or hate the states, open your mind.

The US is a country of 300 million people of many different bents and asperations. They have a violent history that makes good reading. But they are not angles or devils. To a certain extent they should not be casting stones at others actions.
They have been on the forfront of insurgency and counter insurgency warfare arround the world for 100 years. From the philipines to afganistan(on both sides) they have busted quite a few eggs in that time and they know more than anyone what it takes to defeat or win an insurgency campaign.
Every state in that region tortures its people. Every single one of them.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Pongo
Thats all just babble hortland.  You say that "I" would need a rediculous level of proof to accept that Iraq was involved in the WTC.
The truth is that you have accepted Iraq was involved with absolutly NO proof.

[/b]
Point me to the post by me where I say that Iraq was involved in 9-11. If you cant, will you admit you were wrong, or will you try to change the subject?

He is obviosly going to be charged with invading other countries. He will be entiteld to defend him self on that.
He will be charged with actions agianst the Kurds and others. He will be able to introduce evidence that other coutries including the US do the same or worse as a matter of practice in anti insurgencey campaigns

[/b]
You have precious little knowledge about how these trials..or indeed any trial work. All you have said here will be dismissed in two seconds as irrelevant. If he starts a sentence saying "but other countries did..." he will be cut off by the judge. Just like any defendant on a rape trial wont get very far on a "yes, I raped her, but last year, another guy raped another girl, so clearly Im innocent"-defence.

He will be charged with torture and be entitled to show that it is again a matter of state perogitive to torture. A canadian was tortured in Saudi Jails for over a year.
Is he guilty and will he be convicted. Yes but his defence will be interesting and painful to some.

[/b]
Nope, it will only be painful to the likes of you because he will not be allowed to stand and spew irrelevant BS to a media circus.

The US is a country of 300 million people of many different bents and asperations. They have a violent history that makes good reading. But they are not angles or devils. To a certain extent they should not be casting stones at others actions.
They have been on the forfront of insurgency and counter insurgency warfare arround the world for 100 years. From the philipines to afganistan(on both sides) they have busted quite a few eggs in that time and they know more than anyone what it takes to defeat or win an insurgency campaign.

[/b]
Thats all just babble Pongo.

Every state in that region tortures its people. Every single one of them.

And every single state in that region is a moslem state. Odd huh...Islam being a religion of peace I mean...

[Westy]

Well said Pongo.

Come the 2004 elections I'm going to enter your handle in the write-in slot on the ballot.   " Pongo for Prez!"


You're far more literate than the bozo in office now and I cannot stomache the idea of voting for any of the losers being tendered by the two predominant US political institutions, er, "party's."

[DmdNexus]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Kinda quiet out there, Nexus? Any of the Bush bashers want to comment?

Well I will, I'm still critical of the administrations failure to get a new Iraqi Gov't up and running, though I could see how its not a very secure place to do so at the moment.  Gotta clean it up first.

Haven't been on the boards.

WTG Marines!

The credit here goes to the US Armed Forces and the State Department -  not Bush.

Bush is a liar and a goat fornicator!

Bush has made every attempt to break US and international law... and undermind the US Constitution - contrary to his oath of office.

"Bush does not play well with others." Note from his school teacher.

Sorry... had to get that out of my system! Ahhhh!
I feel better now!

Oh by the way... none of this was done with the money given to Haliburton - they're still pumping oil into their pockets while they plunder the public coffers.

Do the research... the majority of that work - was done by charity organizations and by the Iraqi people.

[Pongo]

I wondered why you were talking such noncense hortland. You think this will be like a rape trial. No it will not. You are holding the whole Bathist regime responsible for crimes against humanity.  In order to do so you have to establish that acts were illegal.  It is not illegal to invade other coutries obviosly as the US invaded Iraq didnt it.
 It is not illegal to defend your country against an insurgency.
Its not illegal to destroy the houses of insurgents as the US has done just that.
Your trying to fit the accused crimes into a mold that will make you comfortable. An international tribunal would allow him to establish the norm for the situation his country was in. How far he had strayed from that norm would be the issue.

No need to continue discussing this one. If you cant even admit the possiblility that the man will be given a fair trial or that if he was then it could get embarrasing for certain countries.

[Pongo]

Originally posted by Westy
Well said Pongo.

Come the 2004 elections I'm going to enter your handle in the write-in slot on the ballot.   " Pongo for Prez!"


You're far more literate than the bozo in office now and I cannot stomache the idea of voting for any of the losers being tendered by the two predominant US political institutions, er, "party's."

Presidents need to be visionaries. I am just a nit picking problem solver at the best of time.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Pongo
I wondered why you were talking such noncense hortland. You think this will be like a rape trial. No it will not. You are holding the whole Bathist regime responsible for crimes against humanity.  In order to do so you have to establish that acts were illegal.  It is not illegal to invade other coutries obviosly as the US invaded Iraq didnt it.
 It is not illegal to defend your country against an insurgency.
Its not illegal to destroy the houses of insurgents as the US has done just that.

[/b]
You are oversimplifying. Look at the current Milosevic trial if you want to get some sort of understanding as to how this works. It is almost exactly like a rape trial, that is, the core mechanisms of a normal trial is all there. The crimes against humanity is already listed and defined, no real need to establish what acts were illegal. It most certainly is illegal to invade other nations, with some notable exceptions. Problem is that those laws only really apply to some countries. So for example, the US can invade pretty much anyone at will. Anyone having a problem with that can take it up with the US. Or they could try to invade the US and capture the president and move him to the Hauge for a war crimes trial. It is illegal to defend your country against insurgency if you violate the laws of war while you do it. Much like GScholz, you are drifiting into a very odd area right now. Gscholz ended up screaming at everyone in his defense of the Iraqi massacres of Shiite moslems around Basrah, I wonder if you are heading in the same direction.

Your trying to fit the accused crimes into a mold that will make you comfortable. An international tribunal would allow him to establish the norm for the situation his country was in. How far he had strayed from that norm would be the issue.

[/b]
No, you simply dont understand what you are talking about here. *shrug* Im sorry but that is the way it is. You will not accept this of cource, but I really dont know how else to put it. An international tribuneral will not allow him to establish "a norm" for his nation in whatever situation it was in. It doesnt work that way. Nuremberg is pretty clear on how it works. Some stuff is illegal and will get you punished, no matter what kind of situation you were in.

No need to continue discussing this one. If you cant even admit the possiblility that the man will be given a fair trial or that if he was then it could get embarrasing for certain countries.

No, go ahead and slither away. Ive never said that he wont get a fair trial. Of cource he will. It will not be as embarrassing for the US as you hope, simply because SH will not be allowed to rave at will about whatever topic he sees fit.

[Pongo]

Well we have both slithered our opinions on it. Lets see what happens.