Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mike Brewer
He's not being tried under American Law, so no, the rules of the US Judicial system do not apply to Saddam in any way. More, as far as his trial being held under the Iraqi court system, none of the required paperwork has even been submitted for a foreign attorney to represent Saddam at all, American or otherwise.
|
This is the same argument being used to explain why people being held in Guantanemo bay receive no human rights. According to this theory it would also be ok for Iraqis to torture and murder captured american (or Australian) servicemen because it is acceptable under their system. I disagree.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mike Brewer
True, but he did little or none of the "defending." He ran and hid inside a deep dirt hole and left the defending and the dying to others.
|
This is a pretty weak argument. Does George Bush lead the patrols through Falujah? Of course not, that isn't his job.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mike Brewer
Maybe among those who have become victims of terrorist and insurgent violence. That is not the fault of Americans or any of her allies. It's the fault of so-called anti-occupation fighters that care nothing about killing their fellow Iraqis in order to achive a political goal.
|
I actually agree with you on this point to a great extent. The insurgents are the ones with the car bombs, etc but the american forces are not helping our cause (yes I said "our" as my country is there also) by using WP etc.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mike Brewer
Cam, here's where we truly part company. To call the American government corrupt, you have to be willing to call every other government on the planet equally corrupt. After all, we are a big part of most economies, and a working model for a lot of governments, including those in the countries that so vocally disapprove of who we are and what we do. And while it may be true that corruption exists at every level of every government on Earth, I do not believe it's right to say that we're wrong for invading Iraq because of corrupt government. Today, people are dying because of a political process that is in its infancy. The people who stand to lose power and credibility are killing those who stand to, for the first time in generations, have a free voice in determining their own government. This, in any light you view it, is preferable to random rapings of married Iraqi women, to outright torture and murder of their husbands, blanket killings of political opponents or even those who simply voiced disapproval of Saddam, and the attempted genocide of Iraqi Kurds. Anyone who says today's Iraq is as bad as it was under Saddam either has a very short memory, or is exaggerating the situation to make a statement.
|
I do think the American government is corrupt in that it is totally contolled by large industry. I also agree that most other countries go along for the ride and let the US do whatever they want simply because they want a piece of the pie. You are assuming that the political process is in its infancy but I believe it is dead. The regime of Saddam will be replaced by an Islamic fundamentalist government which will be far more dangerous to Israel and the US than Saddam ever was. This is already being seen is Sadr city where the US forces are relatively safe as they let al Sadr's forces control the area and impose sharia law in return for keeping the insurgents out.
I agree that many bad things happenned under Saddam (which was why I originally supported the war) but at the end of the day who is in a better position to know than an Iraqi.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mike Brewer
The UN did. By ignoring their own threats to enforce resolutions that were passed to keep Saddam in check, they flat out blew any hint of credibility they may have had. They left the door open to Saddam and any other dictatorial tyrant on Earth to develop, buy, sell, and use WMD against the West because they made it clear that they were not willing or able to stand up and follow through on their own threats. Are you honestly arguing that it's okay for Iraq to have Nukes? Are you actually saying that it isn't any concern for the rest of the world if a mentally unstable, genocidal man who killed members of his own family in public meeting rooms for diagreeing with him - a man who took his own sons to a jailhouse so that they could have the experience of shooting men by the age of 16 - has nuclear weapons? Brother, if you believe that any nation should be free to develop nukes and that the rest of us have no right or responsibility to intervene, you need to get your head checked. By that logic, it's okay if Iran has them, too, right? Even after their president issued a public announcement that it's his administration's INTENT to wipe Israel off the map by force? But I guess none of us should get involved in that either, huh. After all, we're not the world's police.
|
I think that if you have nuclear weapons then you have no right to forcably remove them from others just because you see them as "bad". Who decided that Iran was evil. Iran does not like america or Israel but that does not make it evil. America does not like Cuba so does that mean they are evil? I think the Iranians would be no more likely to use nuclear weapons than the US. I am not sure how much history you have on Iran but they used to be a very free democracy until the american government overthrew the president and replaced him with a dictator. That is why they hate the US.
Does that mean I would be comfortable with the idea of Saddam or the taliban having nukes. NO!! but the controls put in place to prevent them were working without the invasion.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mike Brewer
I know I'm coming after you a little here, Cam, but believe me - I don't fault you for your opinions. But it's cliches like "Who made America the World Police" that make me think back in history to some other times when we could have stayed out of it. World War I, for example. Not really our fight. World War II. Europe's problem for the most part. So what if Hitler wants to eradicate the Jews? We're not the world police. I guess if you had it your way, we'd allow the Moussolini's, the Pol Pot's, the Hitler's, the Stalin's, the bin Laden's, and the Saddam Husseins of the world do whatever they wanted to whomever they wanted? But before you go slinging newscast soundbites like the "world police" around, think about the kind of world we'd be living in right now if America had stayed out of it during those other times. Imagine the kind of world you'd be living in if we didn't get involved and someone like Saddam got himself some nukes. He blasts Israel, who blasts back, and it's the same scenario that we fought the Cold War over. Half the people on Earth are dead, and the rest live in a permanent radioactive winter. It might even kill the Australian tourism industry! No one wants to dive a barrier reef covered in glowing orange fishes, after all.
|
Ok. Firstly I want to say that it is ok that you are coming after me. I knew my opinions would not be popular when I stated them.
Secondly. I would like to say that I apprieciate all of the time the US have helped us. I visited the memorial at the D-Day landing beaches last year and I really apprieciate the sacrfice made by the US people during the last few wars.
Thirdly. Nothing could destroy the australian tourist industry and most of the fish on the reef are already orange
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mike Brewer
I understand your points, but I think your world view might be a little myopic on this issue. After all, everyone, including Australia, believed Saddam had those weapons at the start of the war (see also "Where are the WMD in Iraq" thread on this forum). Everyone saw what Saddam did to his people over the years. And the vast, vast majority of Iraqis are happy to be rid of him. And since Saddam is being tried by Iraqis, under Iraqi law, in an Iraqi court for crimes against the Iraqi people, no, I don't think an American attorney needs to be there - unless he is well versed in Iraqi law and certified as an attorney in that country by their version of the Bar Association. And as far as his defense attorney's getting killed, who knows? Maybe they're bing murdered by some of those folks that you claim are so unhappy that he's no longer in power. Still, since it's a former Iraqi dictator ebing tried in an Iraqi court, who are we to make sure they're protected? After all, what are we? The World's Police?
|
I have already stated that I believe that Saddam had Chemical and Biological weapons (but not nukes) and I am certainly not defending anything that Saddam did to any of his people but I think you will find that even under Iraqi law he is entitled to a lawyer and I don't see the offence that was taken by everyone in the original post that the lawyer happens to be american.
I have seen lots of evil dictators do things to lots of people (like in Zimbabwe right now for example) but no one steps in then. Do not be mistaken, the US government attacked Iraq for the oil.
And by the way I have served in the Australian army so I am not speaking from a point of view that does not understand the military. My argument is not with the military but with the governments that control them.
Cam