The Risks of A Trial (I love make people fallin' asleep :)

[stormie_skies]

Excellent point, Kiko. Using humanitarian concern as an excuse for the invasion of Iraq while ignoring the tragedy occuring in Sudan seems hypocritical at best.

[Kiko]

So what do you want kiko? Do you want us to bring Saddam Insane to trial here in the United States? Or are you saying he does not need to go to trial at all?

What I want is to see Justice done. But justice works both ways. Read the letter I posted.

An impartial international criminal tribunal is necessary to prevent "victor’s justice," where only the vanquished are subject to prosecution.

http://congress.org/congressorg/bio/use ... d=95166301

Better measuring factors would be the number of attacks on Americans, US interests and our allies in total (which have gone up since we invaded Iraq, to the highest level in decades).

Thank you, Stormie. This policy of global domination gets us deeper and deeper into the doo doo.

There is not one poster on this board that would stand for being dictated to by a foreign invader. I dare one to step forward.

If we're going to export our way-of-life to other cultures in order to defend our way-of-life, we best be prepared to pay the cost. We've been told this enough times, but would anyone like to tell me why the resistance in Iraq has been so fiece?

What are they defending that is so precious to their own 'way-of-life'?

[mf_dolphin]

The groups opposing us have different motives.

1) Former regime leaders - they're hoping to preserve their way of life which included murdering people in droves and at a whim.

2) Radical Shiites which would love to establish a Iran type fundamentalist state like Iran (which by the way is in trouble internally)

I beg to differ on several points above. What got us into this mess was allowing countries to support and fund terrorists around the world. The unanswered attacks only embolden our opponents who were able to strike without fear of retaliation. It's high time we stood up and said "enough is enough". They have no choice now but to fight but now it's on our terms not theirs.

[mf_dolphin]

I invite everyone to go to the site from which Kiko posted the letter and read some of the other articles on there. Several articles that I took the time to read were so obviously slanted that the rest weren't worth my time. I particularly liked the one about why is Saddam being held at all. Poor little Saddam.

Here are some quotes from the article:

As we now know, Saddam Hussein was telling the truth. He had no WMD, had in fact gotten rid of them in 1991 when the U.N. passed a resolution demanding that he do so. Well, the administration of which you are the chief legal officer then insisted the war was justified because of Al Qaeda connections to Saddam’s regime. We don’t need a permission slip from the UNSC if we see there is a potential threat from a government somewhere, anywhere, that might develop WMD and give them to Al Qaeda, who would then sneak them into the United States and cause catastrophic loss of life. But now we find Saddam was absolutely telling the truth that he had no contact with Al Qaeda or Osama bin Laden and that the one overture that came from Al Qaeda to an Iraqi official several years ago, asking assistance from Baghdad, was rebuffed. Apparently our intelligence agencies knew all this, as the 9-11 Commission has since discovered, but the administration you serve chose to believe otherwise.

To tell you the truth, John, as far as I can recall, there have been no assertions of the “brutality” of Saddam’s regime from anyone but the Iraqi exiles associated with Ahmed Chalabi or those Kurds who fought on the Iranian side in the Iran/Iraq war. There are all kinds of anecdotes about Saddam doing dreadful things, entire books written about them, but the source of all of them is the same pool of people who have been feeding faked “evidence” of WMD and Al Qaeda connections to our government. Can it be that there is nothing that Saddam has done all these years that cannot be justified as the permissible acts of a head of state acting in defense of his people. Yes, he invaded Kuwait in 1990, but in retrospect that was a really easy war to justify, given the economic warfare being conducted against Iraq by the Emir of Kuwait. I mean easy in relation to now having to justify this American invasion and destruction of good chunks of Iraq, on false premises.

In my opinion this site is no better that the Aryan Nation sites which use half-truths and a demented slant to support their political agenda. http://www.globalresearch.ca

The Centre for Research on Globalisation (CRG) is an independent research and media group of progressive writers, scholars and activists committed to curbing the tide of "globalisation" and "disarming" the New World Order. The CRG webpage at http://globalresearch.ca based in Montréal publishes news articles, commentary, background research and analysis on a broad range of issues, focussing on the interrelationship between social, economic, strategic, geopolitical and environmental processes.

How come this site being based in French Canada doesn't surprise me?!
As to the specific article mentioned, it mentions as unprecedented that President Bush removed President Clinton's signatures. This is in fact a fairly common occurance for a new administration to fail to back or withdraw an unratified treaty.

[Lindaloo]

EXCELLENT!!

[stormie_skies]

In my opinion this site is no better that the Aryan Nation sites which use half-truths and a demented slant to support their political agenda.

Because right-wing pundits and groups would NEVER use half-truths and a demented slant to support THEIR political agenda....

BWAHAHAHAHA!

[mf_dolphin]

BS from any source is still BS! that's why I learned a long time ago to think for myself I have just as much problem with right-wing BS but the difference is I don't quote it to support my views.

[stormie_skies]

BS from any source is still BS! that's why I learned a long time ago to think for myself I have just as much problem with right-wing BS but the difference is I don't quote it to support my views.

Now THAT I will agree with.....its always best to use several sources to confirm the reliability of your information.

[Kiko]

Then on the other hand if you don't use anything to support your views you get clobbered for not citing sources.

ya ya ya

I personally don't have a problem with independent think tanks doing research for me, and don't really care if that's where she works to inform CONGRESS of the work they're doing there.

My God, they'd snooze all day if someone wasn't giving them something to be about.

[mf_dolphin]

I use all types of media sources and try and wade through the BS. Kiko I'd hardly call that source an independent one. Independent think tanks usually looks at issues from all sides not just a far-left bias one. I saw nothing but conservative Bush bashing with little concern for the facts. Take the article that I quoted, "But now we find Saddam was absolutely telling the truth that he had no contact with Al Qaeda or Osama bin Laden and that the one overture that came from Al Qaeda to an Iraqi official several years ago, asking assistance from Baghdad, was rebuffed. Apparently our intelligence agencies knew all this, as the 9-11 Commission has since discovered, but the administration you serve chose to believe otherwise. " That's not what the 9-11 commission reported. They said there was no direct evidence that Saddam actively participated in the 9-11 attacks. They acknowledged that there were continuing contacts between Saddam's government and Al Qaeda.

"Think Tanks" analyze data and draw conclusions not spew political rhetoric....