Saddam captured?

[mr.Blacky]

Originally posted by Deadmanwalking
Talking of international laws.

GENEVA CONVENTION ffs.

The americans went ape shit when the Iraqis videod some POW and broadcast it. Now they are doing it to Saddam.

Please read the Geneva Convention please then you would know that it is for soldiers, and not dictators. So tell me where the US broke that in Irak?
I could also point out that it is not a law but an agreement between nations (meaning if a nation hasn't signed it it doesn't aply to them)
As for the UN ermmm where is the UN lawbook Also no nations are in the UN that don't want to (look at Switserland) does this mean they are bound by something the UN says? that would be nice not being having a say about something and then being hold to it.
Next thing lets talk about a nation (Taiwan) that wants to join, its a democracy by everyone standards but cant caus one of the veto nations (china) believes it to be a province of it....yeah that is a good thing of the bloody UN it supports a nation that abuses its first ARTICLE (human rights anyone???) against a peace loving democratic state. And now you tell me they make laws? hah.


It is funny to see people blab about something they think they know

Now if you are talking about global opinion I would agree, but that is rather western oriented and also very forgiving about things done by leftish regimes and very hard about things done by rightish regimes.


(btw sorry if it doenst make any sense, I am tired)

 

[mr.Blacky]

Originally posted by n00b79
hang both bush and saddam imo, they are both the same shit, saddam was it against his own people, bush against the world.....

they are both criminals but one of the is the leader of the most powerful nation in the world, thats why no one has the balls to accuse him or go hunt him as he has done with others that doesnt follow his way....

lets just hope China wakes up from its sleep so the world doesnt only have 1 dominating nation anymore, this USA 4 TEHWIN bullshit is getting on my nerves, this world needs some type of balance and with only 1 country dominating it can never be achieved.

Yep guilty of double posting
First what crime has Bush commited? or, as you say, don't you have the balls to accuse him of a specific crime
Personally I hope China never awakens, as said in my previous post China is a lot worse then the USA. Then it really would be going from the pan into the fire (or however the saying goes lol)

 

[Cloowwwnnn]

Originally posted by n00b79
if you dont have anything to say about him i dont give a flying fu*k but do not interfere in my well written posts about what i think and how i post them.

I had an opinion on one of your posts, yes. The one where you say you're a logical human being or something. I was pointing out exactly how logical you were being. I should have been more logical and made a new thread for a new topic, right?

 

[mr.Blacky]

Dang Clowneh post faster then I wouldn't had a double post

 

[Durzel]

What I don't fully understand is that W.o.m.D was the original reason for going to war, and yet none were found. How could they legitimately imprison Saddam when (without WOMD) he has only been doing what he's been doing for the countless years beforehand? The US didn't step in and arrest him then, so why now?

As much as I dont doubt he was a dictator, and probably oversaw a number of atrocities (not directly obviously) - I don't really see how he is specifically different from other World leaders involved in atrocities in the past and present. And I don't really see what jurisdiction the US or indeed the UK has over any other country - regardless of any implied threat of terrorism - you don't see the Police arresting/imprisioning people who "looked shifty" do you.

Osama is one thing - that's someone who admitted to a direct attack on the States. Only thing Saddam and his regime is guilty of as far as I can see is defending itself when under attack?

Just because our media has a friendly face and flashy graphics doesn't mean its necessarily an 100% fair and unbiased depiction of events.....

(Incidentally, I'm not pro or anti-war - I just find it a little worrying that we (US and UK, the coalition) can stomp over countries and arrest and put people to trial as we see fit - under the assumed banner of "anti-terrorism")

 

[kameleon]

Yes we can, the world is a much smaller place now and every country has an obligation to the other. I dont want to see the USA dictating policy either, I think that all the prisoners held in Guantanamo bay and Saddam should be tried under a UN court with the power to inflict a death penalty.

It's about time we started showing these "terrorist groups" that we mean business and that they cant hide behind the laws of the particular country in which they performed the atrocity. This goes for country leaders too, no one should be above the law.

 

[xane]

Originally posted by Durzel
What I don't fully understand is that W.o.m.D was the original reason for going to war, and yet none were found. How could they legitimately imprison Saddam when (without WOMD) he has only been doing what he's been doing for the countless years beforehand? The US didn't step in and arrest him then, so why now?

The legitimacy of the conflict was down to the UN Security Council Resolutions, the ultimatum of November 2002 (Resolution 1441) was not adhered to by Iraq and therefore the US encted the "serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations" part of the text.

The WMD excuse was used by the US, but the problem is that WMD or the production facilities of such, will not be found or proved for many years. The UN inspectors know of several deficits of chemical weapons between what was produced and what was used during the Iran-Iraq war, those weapons have never been recovered nor has proof of their destruction ever been established. To all intensive purposes they "exist" (using a negative argument), however, they have not been "found", considering the huge amount of ammo dumps Iraq has don't hold your breath.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but the reality is that the world attempted to negotiate and appease Saddam with treaties and agreements which he broke regularly, examples include:

• The convention on Biological and Chemical weapons, which he then used against Iran and insergents inside Iraq.
• The nuclear non-proliferation treaty, evidence was found by inspectors he was carrying out a covert nuclear weapons program.
• The Arab League of Nations, states that no member should attack or invade another, broken twice against Iran and Kuwait, threatened to break against probably every other Arab country.
• The Geneva convention regarding terrorism and hostage taking, Iraq threatened to use both.
• The UNSC resolutions forbidding Iraq to own or produce WMD, or the means to produce, or the delivery systems, yet the UN inspectors found missiles that clearly exceeded the rules which were designed and built _after_ the agreement.

The reason why no-one stepped in before was because accepted policy is to search for peaceful means to any potential conflict, these clearly failed in Saddam's case.

 

[(Shovel)]

Originally posted by kameleon
Yes we can, the world is a much smaller place now and every country has an obligation to the other. I dont want to see the USA dictating policy either, I think that all the prisoners held in Guantanamo bay and Saddam should be tried under a UN court with the power to inflict a death penalty.

It's about time we started showing these "terrorist groups" that we mean business and that they cant hide behind the laws of the particular country in which they performed the atrocity. This goes for country leaders too, no one should be above the law.

Maybe, but that's what organisations like the UN were formed for. It's not about 2 of the richest countries running off and forming a little club to police the bits of the world they don't like. But who's going to stop them? You? Me?

Death penalty is a whole other thread, though I personally wouldn't want people, criminal or otherwise, killed in my name.

The last thing brings me back to the start: It does indeed go for western country leaders as well, but the US have already screamed exemption at the idea of an International Criminal Court, seeking immunity for anyone who's American from war crimes. Apart from this being highly dubious anyway - why would you want exemption unless you know you'll be guilty of them? - it begs again, who's going to make them? You? Me? Anyone?

There's plenty of people who would want to try and bring western leaders to justice when they cock up - whether anything post war has happened that warrents this is entirely up for debate, but if there was, a few keen activists wont be enough, and therefore leaders can safely hife behing the apathy/ignorance of the majority.

 

[Embattle]

Originally posted by xane

The reason why no-one stepped in before was because accepted policy is to search for peaceful means to any potential conflict, these clearly failed in Saddam's case.

I agree with xane although I would like to add that before the search for peaceful means it was convenient not to step in...sadly.

 

[Furr]

by the way I think the one of the US staff did make a statement on Saddam that he would be held in accordance to the geneva convention (Secretary Donald Rumsfeld if i remember). Although he isnt actually being held as a prisoner of war.
but anyway so even if he isnt applicable to saddam it seems as they will still use it in mantaining his captivity. Proabbly to make sure they get on the right side of human rights groups and such which makes sense.

 

[xane]

Originally posted by (Shovel)
but the US have already screamed exemption at the idea of an International Criminal Court, seeking immunity for anyone who's American from war crimes.

This is not quite true.

The Americans wanted a power of veto to be decided by their own justice system, there was no blanket immunity clause, just that if some twat decides to accuse an American general of being a war criminal, then the Americans don't have to comply unless their own justice determines that as a fact too.

If an American was deemed to be a war criminal by the US government, then the US was quite happy to hand them over to the ICC, so they agree with the principles, just not the way in which any old politically motivated moron can accuse them, which would obviously happen, as was proved when Belgium tried to bring in universal juristiction of war crimes.

 

[Wij]

Is Saddam Santa now ?

 

[mr.Blacky]

Originally posted by (Shovel)
It's not about 2 of the richest countries running off and forming a little club to police the bits of the world they don't like. But who's going to stop them? You? Me?

Yes you you have the right and obligation to vote for the person you believe best suited for representing you in parlement. It is a right not given to a lot of people around the world.
Also you saying that there is a majority of morons that don't care I would say you are wrong, disagreeing with you don't make them morons

 

[(Shovel)]

I didn't actually say moron, and while I privately think the actions of plenty of people in this little island of ours as occasionally moronic, that's not on a basis of them disagreeing with my views... Although I suppose you could argue as to whether ignorance is a choice, in which case "maybe".
Everything begins with choice and all that...

Maybe I would view a certain disengaged section of the populace as "irresponsible", I don't know. I'm not convinced that I'm engaged enough to make that judgement, even if I was I'm not sure it would be right to make such a judgement.

Maybe it's best that those who want to change the world sell their ideas, and everyone else at least have the good manners to listen..

And I agree, it is up to 'me' to change it. Just as it is up to everyone else.

 

[GDW]

Heres a thing. The photos released of Saddam show him sporting a beard which would take, what I would have thought at least a year to grow. Yet a video of him showed him clean shaven back in March.

 

[mr.Blacky]

Soz Shovel dunno where I got the word moron from

And GDW you havent seen my face after 1 week of not shaving hehe

 

[GDW]

Pics please...no on second thoughts

 

[xane]

Originally posted by Wij
Is Saddam Santa now ?

http://www.brokennewz.com/displaystory.asp_Q_storyid_E_670saddamsanta

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by xane
http://www.brokennewz.com/displaystory.asp_Q_storyid_E_670saddamsanta

 

[Rekin]

Originally posted by Durzel
What I don't fully understand is that W.o.m.D was the original reason for going to war, and yet none were found. How could they legitimately imprison Saddam when (without WOMD) he has only been doing what he's been doing for the countless years beforehand? The US didn't step in and arrest him then, so why now?

Slight point - Saddam has already used WoMD on the Kurds in 1988.

There would be an easy way for Bush/Blair to prove Saddam has WoMD. Considering it was the USA and UK who sold them to him, surely it would be easiest just to put the invoices on public display.

 

[Deadmanwalking]

Originally posted by Rekin
Slight point - Saddam has already used WoMD on the Kurds in 1988.

There would be an easy way for Bush/Blair to prove Saddam has WoMD. Considering it was the USA and UK who sold them to him, surely it would be easiest just to put the invoices on public display.

1991 after the first gulf war.

 

[FatBusinessman]

That would only prove that he used to have them. He can (and did) just claim that he's had them destroyed, and then the only way to prove him wrong is to find them. Which no-one has managed to do so far, and I doubt they ever will, as I personally believe that they were destroyed (if not back in the 90s, probably once Bush started accusing him).

 

[Tenko]

I HAVE NOT READ A SINGLE COMMENT IN THIS THREAD SINCE MINE, ABOUT 4 COMEENTS DOWN ON 1ST PAGE.

Did it get all completely pointless, flamey and generally nasty like I predicted?

If so call me Nostrodamus and pass me a brandy.

 

[Cpt. Paranoia]

Originally posted by Tenko
I HAVE NOT READ A SINGLE COMMENT IN THIS THREAD SINCE MINE, ABOUT 4 COMEENTS DOWN ON 1ST PAGE.

Did it get all completely pointless, flamey and generally nasty like I predicted?

If so call me Nostrodamus and pass me a brandy.

It did for awhile, but the last page has really picked up and has been very interesting.

 

[Gekul]

Originally posted by Tenko
I HAVE NOT READ A SINGLE COMMENT IN THIS THREAD SINCE MINE, ABOUT 4 COMEENTS DOWN ON 1ST PAGE.

Did it get all completely pointless, flamey and generally nasty like I predicted?

If so call me Nostrodamus and pass me a brandy.

I think reading the thread would have been a good idea in this case

 

[Tenko]

Cool!

Will go read it now, don't think I could of bothered if it was full of bile and vitriol.

What you reckon, top of page 3 do?

(Its where I usually start to read, well the Sun and the Star anyway)

 

[Wile_E_Coyote]

The attack on Iraq

I'd just like to point out:
USA and "allies" broke several important UN charters as well as violates the People's Court in attacking a sovereign nation without a UN resolution. Whether or not Iraq complied well enough to article 1441 never justified an attack, in fact the UN secretary general warned the US not to do this. The weapons inspectors claimed they were making progress. And in fact more weapons were destroyed by the inspectors than all the bombings of the Gulf War. And none of the so called "evidence" the US presented as proof of Iraqi breach of 1441 proved incriminating on closer inspection by the UN experts.

Pre-emptive attacks "could set precedents that resulted in a proliferation of the unilateral and lawless use of force, with or without credible justification"
- Kofi Annan on the US invasion

Concerning US motivation:
It’s interesting to note that the US backed Iraq in its attack on Iran where WMD was used. They also swept under the carpet the WMD genocide at Halabja in 1988, and never threatened Iraq with sanctions or invasion back then. Why? Back then the Saddam with his CIA contacts was one of the US's "pet" dictators helping them fight the "evil" communist and Muslim influences in the Middle East. [Chomsky, Rouge States]

The US also ignored the massacre of the rebels they made raise up against Saddam under the Gulf War... Suddenly in 2003 they start thinking of the well-being of the Iraqi people? Please...

Interesting fact: Iraq has the second larges oil reserves in the world, only beaten by Saudi Arabia.

The Bush administration smelled oil and an opportunity to "wag the dog" in the wake of 9/11 in my opinion.

 

[icemaiden]

A few interesting points in this thread for a change, although as normal a bit too much crap for my liking.
Firstly i think it's great Saddam has been caught, he was an evil t*** and quite frankly should've been brought to justice years ago.
I was supportive of the whole war in Iraq thing until quite recently. The problem is i just don't get a lot of the politics that surround it. For example, America helped Saddam gain power in Iraq in the first place, well ok not him personally but his political party. I also don't get why people keep going on about the war being wrong. I agree that the reasons given for it were a load of kaka, but for goodness sake the guy attacked iran, kuwait, unleashed nuclear weapons on his own ppl, used a 5yr old boy as a human shield at one point, and is directly resposnible for murdering members of his own family. The only way to get rid of him was by war as he had such a hold on Iraq any other method was impossible. How anyone can say he should've been left to it, or was no threat to the western world is completely beyond me. Oh and just for the sake of it, apparently SAS were involved in the capture as they were used to translate arabic for the yanks at some point, and the info as far as i've noticed came from someone within Saddams regime that had been captured, and not the kurds. Also the estonian can openers were found to be essential to operation red dawn.

 

[SilverHood]

Does it really matter Coyote?
The US runs the UN, the US runs NATO.

Oh, they call it democracy and all that, but if things don't go the States' way, they go ahead anyway.

Who's gonna stop them? Until we get a European army, (hopefully run by the Germans), the EU have little real power except for trade embargoes... and that's not gonna work against a country like the US.

The only other countries who could oppose the US are China and Russia. And Russia's military power is not really "that" great. And China... well, they'll have their day in the future probably, but it isn't now.

Personally, I thought the entire "war on Irak" a ploy to get the terrorists away from the US and Israel, and to Iran.
Army casualties are accepted in war.
Civilian casualties in peacetime is not.

Oh, and then there's the matter of rebuilding Irak. No doubt US companies will get a big share of those, and their economy will get better.

 

[Deadmanwalking]

Originally posted by icemaiden
Oh and just for the sake of it, apparently SAS were involved in the capture as they were used to translate arabic for the yanks at some point, and the info as far as i've noticed came from someone within Saddams regime that had been captured, and not the kurds.

From what i have heard they did alot more then just translate. The tip off about the area came via British Special Forces who had been in iraq for the past few years.

And the Kurds present got a bit of a slapping from the americans when they disputed an all american operation.