Saddam captured - Page 5

ScottishDude · 12-14-2003, 06:57 PM

Hey all,
Just read the news n all...
I reckon this whole thing does not change much in reality. In politics I think it looks quite rosey, but does this make the world a better and safer place? whats the point? The capture of Saddam does not justify the war and won't solve any wars to come.

xoxoxoBruce · 12-14-2003, 07:38 PM

It makes a difference to Iraq's people. It changes their perception of their security and future. But no, it doesn't justify anything or prevent future wars anywhere but possibly Iraq. That, we'll never know.

plthijinx · 12-14-2003, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
It makes a difference to Iraq's people. It changes their perception of their security and future. But no, it doesn't justify anything or prevent future wars anywhere but possibly Iraq. That, we'll never know.

it does make a difference, a huge difference. but look at history, the middle east has been in one war (civil or not) or another for ions. unfortunately, there will always be battles and wars over god and allah. that's just the way they see it. too bad.

of course there are other reasons too, but they always seem to bring allah and all that into it.

wolf · 12-14-2003, 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by russotto
On the US health care system: So what's the waiting period for non-life-critical surgery in those socialized systems? Several years?

Among the various specialties, the shortest total waits were for cancer surgery (6.1 weeks), cancer radiation (8.1 weeks) and general surgery (10.3 weeks), while patients waited longest for orthopedic surgery (32.2 weeks), eye treatment (30 weeks) and plastic surgery (28.6 weeks).

Getting diagnosed for a problem in the first place also proved to be more burdensome for Canadians, according to the survey.

The median wait for an ultrasound was 3.6 weeks; for computed tomography (a CT scan) it was 5.5 weeks; and for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) it was 12.7 weeks.

The above is from an article in cnews regarding the Canadian Healthcare system.

32 week wait for Orthopedic surgery? That's longer than it takes most broken bones to heal, people. See something wrong there? The waiting periods for diagnostic imaging are equally horrifying ... you can be dead before your appointment to have a head CT to determine if you are stroking out ... this is NOT progress. This is not adequate patient care by any stretch of the imagination.

You can get emergency treatment in the United States whether or not you have insurance coverage. You can have these diagnostic procedures performed. You do not have to wait three to six months for an appointment.

People with low/no incomes qualify for medical assistance, which is many cases is better coverage than a lot of paid iinsurance plans. (I know that the mental health coverage for PA Medical Assistance Subscribers offers more benefit days than equivalent private plans, and I'm told by more than a few patients that the medical coverage portion is good as well.)

Torrere · 12-14-2003, 10:35 PM

It will be relevent because, even if Saddam was not actively aiding the Iraqi Resistance, he was a figurehead to rally around (well, other than God).

tw · 12-15-2003, 01:43 AM

1) Who gets the reward for providing a tip that lead to Saddam's capture?

2) The only serious crime Saddam is really wanted for against Americans was his treatment of POWs during the Kuwait Liberation war. However that trial has already concluded. The courts ruled against Iraq, and ordered a large repairation to the victims. The only reason that court ruling has been stifled - the George Jr administration outrightly refuses to let those victims receive their just compensation.

3) If the US has no claims nor jurisdiction against Saddam, then Saddam must be tried either in a World Court, in Iraq, or in some other Arab nation (Iran or Kuwait). In a similar case, Spain tried to put Pinochet on trial for the murder of Spanish citizens when this American supported dictator did same as Saddam to his Chilean citizens and foreign nationals.

4) Only way the US can hold Saddam is as a POW. But the US never declared war. How can one have a prisoner of war when no war was declared - legally justified either by US or international law. Just another problem with invading another nation when the UN did not sanction such action.

Point three is very unlikely for many reasons. One, the current US administration treats Iraq as a prize and does not permit other nations any access to the spoils. Saddam being one of the spoils. Second, the current US administration openly refuses to support or trust a World Court. Submitting Saddam to The Hague might mean the US, by action, falls under the jurisdiction of that court. Third, if Saddam is as evil as portrayed by the current US administration, then the death penalty is a defacto necessity. However the world court (I believe) does not support a death penalty.

Point 4 is a serious legal issue. We hold those non-persons in Guantanimo because there is no legal justificaton to hold them. How then can Saddam be held - legally? Currently Saddam is being called a POW even though legally that cannot be.

The entire resolution to these questions may be found in another president (and President) - Noriega. IOW details of how Noriega is held in prision in the US may need be re reported due to relevance.

So do we put Saddam in prision with Noriega? Do we hold him in America? Do we take him to TX so that he can be executed using TX justice (let Saddam's lawyer sleep through the trial since the verdict is preordained)?

I believe this administration views the law only as an inconvience. I believe they have already ordained his execution. It would only hurt US approval ratings throughout most of the world. But this administration does not care. US opinion ratings have dropped from 60 and 80% to less than 15% and mostly in single digit percent. IOW I believe it is only a matter of time before this administration executes Saddam - either legally or by some prision accident.

SteveDallas · 12-15-2003, 02:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by sycamore
Steve, to deny Saddam Hussein a fair trial is a slap in the face to human rights in general, IMO. I think he deserves the chance to face his accusers, no matter how evil he is.

Oh yeah, I agree. Rereading my post I was not clear on that point: I want him to have a nice trial. (Say, Nuremberg-like.) I just think it's more important to have it for everybody else's sake than for Saddam's.

tw, for point one, I read (sorry I forgot which site) that they said it was highly unlikely it would be collected because the intelligence used to find him was gained through "hostile interrogation."

Nothing But Net · 12-15-2003, 02:32 AM

I, for one, welcome our new Saddam-killing overlords.

Been spending too much time on Fark, sorry.

Beestie · 12-15-2003, 07:17 AM

tw wrote:

Quote:

If the US has no claims nor jurisdiction against Saddam, then Saddam must be tried either in a World Court, in Iraq, or in some other Arab nation (Iran or Kuwait).

Iran, my friend, is NOT an Arab nation.

Undertoad · 12-15-2003, 07:24 AM

tw, the Iraqis get him and they get to put him on trial.

The US does have many beefs with Saddam beyond POWs, even if he is your personal hero. For instance, he tried to have Bush Sr. assassinated. Despite my feelings about Bush Sr. I do think that's appalling behavior.

He is also connected to the 1993 WTC bombing and the funding of much terrorism.

The Iraqis get to try him and it will be incredible for them. Here is a guy who had all the school textbooks altered to portray him as basically a God -- and crushed the will of the people through killing and terror. They say some of the schoolkids still revere him and don't understand. The trial will inform their society.

The Arab world is stunned that he didn't go down fighting. The Palestinians are furious that their big hero turned out to be a weasel.

Radar · 12-15-2003, 08:12 AM

Saddam being caught means absolutely NOTHING. It's not an accomplishment, and it's nothing to be proud of. George W. Bush violated the Constitution, launched an unprovoked, unwarranted, and cowardly attack against a country that never posed a threat to America, never attacked America, never trained, harbored, or funded those who did attack America, and had no connection with any groups who did. Those who invaded Iraq are traitors who have violated their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. George W. Bush is the largest enemy of the Constitution and America and is more dangerous to America and the world, than Saddam and Bin Laden combined will ever be. Anti-American assholes who supported the illegal war in Iraq are cheering over his capture like the trained little monkeys they are. Saddam is a scumbag and a murderer, but so is Bush. And Bush took our once proud military and turned them into a bunch of cheap thugs and hired killers who endanger America and the world rather than secure peace and defend it.

This is all more rhetoric in an attempt to get re-elected, but it just won't happen. Bush will be voted out of office assuming he lives to election day. He's got as much chance of being elected as OJ Simpson and he's killed far more people than OJ even thought of killing. The traitors (Bush Supporters) are having a party today, but I will be having one in a year when we remove the biggest threat to America from office. I hope the traitors (Bush Supporters) live in shame for the rest of their lives but odds are they're too stupid to realize they have anything to be ashamed of.

The Iraqi government approved a new Constitution last week that doesn't include the death penalty. The American government captured him after this and will turn Saddam over to the Iraqi court so he won't get the death penalty.

Beestie · 12-15-2003, 08:37 AM

Radar wrote:

Quote:

Saddam being caught means absolutely NOTHING.

Who exactly are you speaking for?

Radar · 12-15-2003, 08:47 AM

I'm speaking for America and for the Libertarian Party. America has no justification what-so-ever to attack Iraq in 1991 or in 2003. It wouldn't matter if Saddam had a million nukes, and had murdered 300 million women and children by skinning them alive and boiling them in oil. That still doesn't give America the authority to get involved. The U.S. Government may only do what is specifically listed in the Constitution and NOTHING else. That includes STARTING wars with a DEFENSIVE military against countries that posed no threat, never attacked America, never helped anyone else to attack America, etc.

Those who support the war in Iraq are against everything America stands for. And showing a lame photo of a happy Iraqi doesn't change that. Every single person killed in Iraq rests on George W. Bush's head. Every American, British, Italian, Iraqi, etc. that died were killed because George W. Bush violated the Constitution and started an unprovoked war.

The authority of America ends where America's borders end.

Kitsune · 12-15-2003, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tw
3) If the US has no claims nor jurisdiction against Saddam, then Saddam must be tried either in a World Court, in Iraq, or in some other Arab nation (Iran or Kuwait).

4) Only way the US can hold Saddam is as a POW. But the US never declared war. How can one have a prisoner of war when no war was declared - legally justified either by US or international law. Just another problem with invading another nation when the UN did not sanction such action.

I'm going to take a guess and, just by listening to the press conferences, say that we didn't really expect to capture him alive. All these years we've been bombing buildings and shooting at taxis in the hopes that we'd get him and now, after no shot was fired, we have him.

...and we have no idea what to do with him. We can't take him to the World Court and I don't think we can put him on trial locally without outrage from the international community. Outside of more embarassing health exams aired on television, I think we're going to question him a lot and allow him to spend some time thinking about what he has done in some undisclosed jail cell.

Kitsune · 12-15-2003, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radar
I'm speaking for America and for the Libertarian Party. America has no justification what-so-ever to attack Iraq in 1991 or in 2003.

...

The authority of America ends where America's borders end.

Radar -- I'm curious, what wars in the past 100 years should we have had any involvement in, then?

12-14-2003, 07:38 PM	#62
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	It makes a difference to Iraq's people. It changes their perception of their security and future. But no, it doesn't justify anything or prevent future wars anywhere but possibly Iraq. That, we'll never know. __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

12-15-2003, 08:12 AM	#71
Radar Constitutional Scholar Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Ocala, FL Posts: 4,006	Saddam being caught means absolutely NOTHING. It's not an accomplishment, and it's nothing to be proud of. George W. Bush violated the Constitution, launched an unprovoked, unwarranted, and cowardly attack against a country that never posed a threat to America, never attacked America, never trained, harbored, or funded those who did attack America, and had no connection with any groups who did. Those who invaded Iraq are traitors who have violated their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. George W. Bush is the largest enemy of the Constitution and America and is more dangerous to America and the world, than Saddam and Bin Laden combined will ever be. Anti-American assholes who supported the illegal war in Iraq are cheering over his capture like the trained little monkeys they are. Saddam is a scumbag and a murderer, but so is Bush. And Bush took our once proud military and turned them into a bunch of cheap thugs and hired killers who endanger America and the world rather than secure peace and defend it. This is all more rhetoric in an attempt to get re-elected, but it just won't happen. Bush will be voted out of office assuming he lives to election day. He's got as much chance of being elected as OJ Simpson and he's killed far more people than OJ even thought of killing. The traitors (Bush Supporters) are having a party today, but I will be having one in a year when we remove the biggest threat to America from office. I hope the traitors (Bush Supporters) live in shame for the rest of their lives but odds are they're too stupid to realize they have anything to be ashamed of. The Iraqi government approved a new Constitution last week that doesn't include the death penalty. The American government captured him after this and will turn Saddam over to the Iraqi court so he won't get the death penalty. __________________ "I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death." - George Carlin

12-15-2003, 08:47 AM	#73
Radar Constitutional Scholar Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Ocala, FL Posts: 4,006	I'm speaking for America and for the Libertarian Party. America has no justification what-so-ever to attack Iraq in 1991 or in 2003. It wouldn't matter if Saddam had a million nukes, and had murdered 300 million women and children by skinning them alive and boiling them in oil. That still doesn't give America the authority to get involved. The U.S. Government may only do what is specifically listed in the Constitution and NOTHING else. That includes STARTING wars with a DEFENSIVE military against countries that posed no threat, never attacked America, never helped anyone else to attack America, etc. Those who support the war in Iraq are against everything America stands for. And showing a lame photo of a happy Iraqi doesn't change that. Every single person killed in Iraq rests on George W. Bush's head. Every American, British, Italian, Iraqi, etc. that died were killed because George W. Bush violated the Constitution and started an unprovoked war. The authority of America ends where America's borders end. __________________ "I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death." - George Carlin

12-14-2003, 06:57 PM	#61
ScottishDude Rapscallion Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 5	Hey all, Just read the news n all... I reckon this whole thing does not change much in reality. In politics I think it looks quite rosey, but does this make the world a better and safer place? whats the point? The capture of Saddam does not justify the war and won't solve any wars to come.

12-14-2003, 10:35 PM	#65
Torrere a real smartass Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Kirkland, WA Posts: 1,121	It will be relevent because, even if Saddam was not actively aiding the Iraqi Resistance, he was a figurehead to rally around (well, other than God).

12-15-2003, 01:43 AM	#66
tw Read? I only know how to write. Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 11,933	1) Who gets the reward for providing a tip that lead to Saddam's capture? 2) The only serious crime Saddam is really wanted for against Americans was his treatment of POWs during the Kuwait Liberation war. However that trial has already concluded. The courts ruled against Iraq, and ordered a large repairation to the victims. The only reason that court ruling has been stifled - the George Jr administration outrightly refuses to let those victims receive their just compensation. 3) If the US has no claims nor jurisdiction against Saddam, then Saddam must be tried either in a World Court, in Iraq, or in some other Arab nation (Iran or Kuwait). In a similar case, Spain tried to put Pinochet on trial for the murder of Spanish citizens when this American supported dictator did same as Saddam to his Chilean citizens and foreign nationals. 4) Only way the US can hold Saddam is as a POW. But the US never declared war. How can one have a prisoner of war when no war was declared - legally justified either by US or international law. Just another problem with invading another nation when the UN did not sanction such action. Point three is very unlikely for many reasons. One, the current US administration treats Iraq as a prize and does not permit other nations any access to the spoils. Saddam being one of the spoils. Second, the current US administration openly refuses to support or trust a World Court. Submitting Saddam to The Hague might mean the US, by action, falls under the jurisdiction of that court. Third, if Saddam is as evil as portrayed by the current US administration, then the death penalty is a defacto necessity. However the world court (I believe) does not support a death penalty. Point 4 is a serious legal issue. We hold those non-persons in Guantanimo because there is no legal justificaton to hold them. How then can Saddam be held - legally? Currently Saddam is being called a POW even though legally that cannot be. The entire resolution to these questions may be found in another president (and President) - Noriega. IOW details of how Noriega is held in prision in the US may need be re reported due to relevance. So do we put Saddam in prision with Noriega? Do we hold him in America? Do we take him to TX so that he can be executed using TX justice (let Saddam's lawyer sleep through the trial since the verdict is preordained)? I believe this administration views the law only as an inconvience. I believe they have already ordained his execution. It would only hurt US approval ratings throughout most of the world. But this administration does not care. US opinion ratings have dropped from 60 and 80% to less than 15% and mostly in single digit percent. IOW I believe it is only a matter of time before this administration executes Saddam - either legally or by some prision accident.

12-15-2003, 02:32 AM	#68
Nothing But Net Professor Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Spring, Texas Posts: 1,481	I, for one, welcome our new Saddam-killing overlords. Been spending too much time on Fark, sorry.

12-15-2003, 07:24 AM	#70
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	tw, the Iraqis get him and they get to put him on trial. The US does have many beefs with Saddam beyond POWs, even if he is your personal hero. For instance, he tried to have Bush Sr. assassinated. Despite my feelings about Bush Sr. I do think that's appalling behavior. He is also connected to the 1993 WTC bombing and the funding of much terrorism. The Iraqis get to try him and it will be incredible for them. Here is a guy who had all the school textbooks altered to portray him as basically a God -- and crushed the will of the people through killing and terror. They say some of the schoolkids still revere him and don't understand. The trial will inform their society. The Arab world is stunned that he didn't go down fighting. The Palestinians are furious that their big hero turned out to be a weasel.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)