Saddam Caught..
Dirty_Harry_Potter
Join Date: 2002-11-21 Member: 9500Members
Join Date: 2002-11-21 Member: 9500Members
in Off-Topic
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
See, if they say to Saddam "Where are those WMDs" and Saddam says "I didn't have any" the US isn't going to believe him <i>even if Saddam is actually telling the truth</i>. I will await to see the outcome of this with great interest.
Unlikely, or blatantly optimistic at best. There will be more than enough outside sources of these attacks to ensure they will continue for a fair amount of time. I'm not sure if this will demoralise his supporters enough to make them give up and cease attacks. If anything, it could in fact INCREASE the amount of attacks, particularly revenge attacks.
Not even Fark has this up yet <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
Unless, of course, Saddam isn't the one behind the attacks.
You're absolutely right. He's just a scapegoat. In reality, saddam is the ideal gentleman and heck, any american should be proud to elect him president, if that was possible. It's sad that he was the illegitimate target of a united states ploy to rule the worlds oil. Tsk... something should be done.
Ahhh, nuts.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You know what I ment. I was simply suggesting that perhaps Saddam loyalists or Saddam himself have not been co-ordinating the attacks on Coalition forces in Iraq. If he was, then that's great news. If not, then we have a rather large problem on our hands.
I personally think saddam is a figurehead. He doesn't have the time or the communications abilities to direct and coordinate attacks. He's probably been spending much of his days being relocated to various spiderholes, much like the one we found him in. He probably gets reports on how things are going, and every once in a while releases a tape or something to encourage his supporters to attack. It's too dangerous for him to physically be the primary coordinator of the attacks- with our technology, we could nab him if he used things like cell phones.
He has his party of followers just like any politician. While they make up the minority of the Iraqi populace, they're smeared so much on the news that you'd think EVERY iraqi is attacking soldiers. But that's the media for you. That is not to say that a minority is dis-satisfied with US presence- what I mean is that only a minority are those real extremist followers of saddam.
The real question is: Now that we've got him, what do we do with him?
Oh I don't think it's a conspiracy (the US would have to be pretty sure they had him before claiming it to the whole world). And like I've said, I really hope that Saddam was the one leading the attacks, because that means it isn't a general movement amongst the Iraqi population, which in turn would mean that our troops are going to be facing attacks for a much longer period.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The real question is: Now that we've got him, what do we do with him? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
An Aussie senator had this peice of advice:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Senator Brown said Saddam Hussein must be handed over to an international tribunal and not be accused or tried by a US tribunal or court.
"It is important he is tried by an international tribunal and not by a US tribunal because it is an international issue," he said.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's good advice I believe. If the US wants to squash conspiracy claims and get the international community on it's side, handing Saddam over to the International Criminal Court (or other international body) would be an excellent decision. Try him in the US before a US military tribunal and you'll have Camp X-Ray on a larger scale.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You know what I ment. I was simply suggesting that perhaps Saddam loyalists or Saddam himself have not been co-ordinating the attacks on Coalition forces in Iraq. If he was, then that's great news. If not, then we have a rather large problem on our hands. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is just like any war, you break the oppositions morale and you break their spirit to fight. Saddam is the figurehead for all these attacks, without him, they have less and less to fight for. Things seem gloomier and gloomier.
Its almost like a round of NS, when you know your team is losing. Sure you keep putting up a fight, but for the most part you know you lost and that soon it will be over.
And for the most part, thats all you can do in a war like this. Look at World War II, no one was really sure what happened to Hitler for a long time. And even once the Third Reich was essentially dismantled, there was still resistance from small Nazi holdouts. People forget that once WWII ended every Nazi in the country didn't just throw down their guns all at once, there were still innocent people being killed in the name of Hitler for a time after. History repeats itself eh?
Oh I don't think it's a conspiracy (the US would have to be pretty sure they had him before claiming it to the whole world). And like I've said, I really hope that Saddam was the one leading the attacks, because that means it isn't a general movement amongst the Iraqi population, which in turn would mean that our troops are going to be facing attacks for a much longer period.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The real question is: Now that we've got him, what do we do with him? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
An Aussie senator had this peice of advice:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Senator Brown said Saddam Hussein must be handed over to an international tribunal and not be accused or tried by a US tribunal or court.
"It is important he is tried by an international tribunal and not by a US tribunal because it is an international issue," he said.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's good advice I believe. If the US wants to squash conspiracy claims and get the international community on it's side, handing Saddam over to the International Criminal Court (or other international body) would be an excellent decision. Try him in the US before a US military tribunal and you'll have Camp X-Ray on a larger scale. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
As loathe as I am to agree with anything said by that unpatriotic swine Bob Brown, thats a darn good idea. Let the UN have him to soothe their wounded ego's, or have him tried in Iraqi courts.
Bingo.
The last thing we should do is hand them over to a court made up of countries who didn't think saddams atrocities were worthy of action in the first place. They stand by and allow his people to suffer, and then when america and a select few other countries do the work, they want a major say in the end? I dare say they should sit on it and rotate.
Lick their WOUNDS? We're the ones who bled for this. The Iraqis, the americans, the coalition of allies that helped.... screw the UN's "wounds"
I think he should be tried in an open Iraqi court. A tribunal with representitives from the Iraqi People, the US, and MAYBE the UN but hopefully not.
Because that will be an entirely unbiased legal judgement won't it.
Doing it in a system such as the ICC would help the US gain much-needed international support and aid. If it's done in the US, or the UK, or even in Iraq, people are going to claim that there will be bias, because in truth, the countries that participated in the war are the one's with the biggest stake in seeing Saddam tried and found guilty. That doesn't change the fact that Saddam is a war criminal and if you put him in the ICC or the War Crimes Tribunal, he'll be found guilty. Simply that it reflects better on world opinion to undertake the trial in an international arena.
Bush wins. !!!1 <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
[keep rambling and conspiracy theories out of here]
Is it really Sadam? (obvious target for rambling..DONT!)
What will they do with him?
What will this mean for Iraq?
Edit: The reason i didnt add Questions from the beginning was that my brother bugged me to play Aftermath...
What I was going to say before he moved it :
I've skimmed this issue a bit but heres my viewpoint.
No way in hell is Saddam ever going to get a fair trial in the US, UK, or Iraq.
You can call me a communist, a nazi, a spineless worm, I dont give a ****. As much of a monster as everyone makes him out to be he STILL deserves basic human rights and therefore deserves a FAIR trial.
I'm of the opinion an international court would work best. The hague, or geneva, wherever they process war criminals neutrally.
Having a trial in iraq cannot be classed as fair, not unless you consider the basic legal system that keeps your contries criminals in check null and void.
So, summing up.
As much of a monster as he is, he is still a human and deserves basic human rights, IE, a fair trial. NO country with a vested interest in seeing him guilty should be involved.
And for those yelling for blood, have a damn heart. The guys kids got killed sometime back, I think he's arguably in his own personal hell already. Execution would also make him a martyr, and Martyrs tend to be idealised...