weapons destroyed? Story tonight, after Survivor:Amazon

Brit

David Wulff wrote: And there was me wondering (on a totally different issue) just when exactly it was that the burden of proof stopped falling on the prosecuting party, but then I remembered - it happened the same time the innocent until prooven guilty idea went down the pan. I think the issue of Iraq can be summed up more accurately as "what have they done wrong lately?" Saddam has a very long criminal record (or are you disputing that?) ------------------------------------------ They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin In an encampment expecting daily attack from a powerful enemy, self-preservation is paramount to all law. - Thomas Jefferson

Chris Austin

David, You said it better than I could ever have. I just don't see the point in anybody pretending that Iraq has/is being treated fairly. Our leader accusse them of misdeads but, when they provide evidence to their defense it is immeditly judged as lies. Utter hyprocritical bullshit! quorum pars magna fui

Chris Austin

Brit wrote: Saddam has a very long criminal record (or are you disputing that?) So has our country my friend, shouldn't our leaders be judged by the same standards and logic? quorum pars magna fui

David Wulff

Ok... and that is relavent to what I've just said... how? :confused:

David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk I am only here to amuse myself. Anyone else is a bonus.

h.a.s: 0.0.4

Chris Losinger

Chris Austin wrote: shouldn't our leaders be judged by the same standards and logic? of course. but who will judge them? -c

When history comes, it always takes you by surprise.

Fractals

Chris Austin

Chris Losinger wrote: of course. but who will judge them? I dont know? Who havent we pissed off or pissed on? quorum pars magna fui

Brit

Chris Austin wrote: So has our country my friend, shouldn't our leaders be judged by the same standards and logic? Uh, you must be kidding. You're comparing Saddam to US leaders? Besides, I have no idea how this fits into the "Saddam is innocent until proven guilty thread". Or are you saying that all criminals should go unprosecuted? Perhaps we should go free the criminals in US prisons, too! Afterall, we're just playing favorites unless every criminal goes to jail. The fact of the matter is that Saddam would be dragged into court in a second if he wasn't keeping his military and innocent civilians between himself and any chance of prosecution. Have you heard of Anfal? "When Kurdish leaders met with Iraqi government officials in the wake of the spring 1991 uprising, they raised the question of the Anfal dead and mentioned a figure of 182,000 -- a rough extrapolation based on the number of destroyed villages. Ali Hassan al-Majid reportedly jumped to his feet in a rage when the discussion took this turn. 'What is this exaggerated figure of 182,000?' he is said to have asked. 'It couldn't have been more than 100,000' -- as if this somehow mitigated the catastrophe that he and his subordinates had visited on the Iraqi Kurds." (Iraq's Crime of Genocide, pp. 14, 230.) http://www.gendercide.org/case_anfal.html[^] ------------------------------------------ They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin In an encampment expecting daily attack from a powerful enemy, self-preservation is paramount to all law. - Thomas Jefferson

Brit

Yes, because Iraq have NEVER lied before. (Did I mention that they still had a nuclear program in 1995, four years after inspectors first arrived in the country?) I can't imagine why the US doesn't trust them (perhaps because they've shown themselves to be untrustworthy?) ------------------------------------------ They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin In an encampment expecting daily attack from a powerful enemy, self-preservation is paramount to all law. - Thomas Jefferson

Brit

Because you're complaining that the US isn't using "innocent until proven guilty" on the issue of Iraq. ------------------------------------------ They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin In an encampment expecting daily attack from a powerful enemy, self-preservation is paramount to all law. - Thomas Jefferson

Chris Austin

Hmm....How many of the times has the our leaders lied? How many time has our leaders commited High crimes and broken treaties? Should our leaders be trusted or should every word out of their mouths be deemed as lies? I tend to think the latter. quorum pars magna fui

Chris Austin

Brit wrote: Uh, you must be kidding. No I'm not. Brit wrote: Or are you saying that all criminals should go unprosecuted? I don't think I said that, don't be obtuse. I think all criminals should be judged by the same standards. Brit wrote: _The fact of the matter is that Saddam would be dragged into court in a second if he wasn't keeping his military and innocent civilians between himself and any chance of prosecution. Have you heard of Anfal? "When Kurdish leaders met with Iraqi government officials in the wake of the spring 1991 uprising, they raised the question of the Anfal dead and mentioned a figure of 182,000 -- a rough extrapolation based on the number of destroyed villages. Ali Hassan al-Majid reportedly jumped to his feet in a rage when the discussion took this turn. 'What is this exaggerated figure of 182,000?' he is said to have asked. 'It couldn't have been more than 100,000' -- as if this somehow mitigated the catastrophe that he and his subordinates had visited on the Iraqi Kurds." (Iraq's Crime of Genocide, pp. 14, 230.) http://www.gendercide.org/case\_anfal.html\[^\]_ bla bla bla Do I need to mention attempted genocide on all the races of Great Plains Indians? The list of the crimes that our leaders have commited is quite long. Or, are these only crimes when it suits your argument? Besides, none of this has anything to do with my point. The point is "innocent untill proven otherwise". Even previously convicted criminals have the right in the US. It is simply ridiclus that when they attempt to provide evidence in their defense it is summarly disputed without being examined. quorum pars magna fui

Doug Goulden

Remember it took months to coach them, thats why it took so long. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

Doug Goulden

When the US government is connected with gassing innicent civilians who oppose them I think then you can tell us what criminals they are.... Every person who has ever been in power has dirtied their hands in some way... and every civilization in history has oppressed someone in some way, thats human nature. It's pretty short sighted to try to lump everyone together and think that they are all completely the same, and equally guilty. I think you are trying to compare apples and oranges here when you compare the US with Iraq. BTW I don't mean to imply that oppressing anyone is right or justified, but if you include everyone who ever conquered any piece of land... or people we are all guilty. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

Chris Austin

Doug Goulden wrote: BTW I don't mean to imply that oppressing anyone is right or justified, but if you include everyone who ever conquered any piece of land... or people we are all guilty. Doug that is my whole point. I'm sick of all of the hypocrisy telling Iraq to proving it's innocence when we can't even prove our own. I would like to see cooler heads handle this with a less myopic view. Why not give all of the evidence a fair look? I truly belive in the concept that the burden of guilt should always be on the accuser yet somehow in this situation that burdern has shifted. quorum pars magna fui

Doug Goulden

If only it were that easy. The world has changed though from what it was when the US committed what could be called by some "our attrocities". The difference is that now the world is a smaller place and a country that visits attrocities on its own people can reach out and affect the whole world now. The danger is that trying to weight all of the evidence doesn't work when not everyone is willing to live by a common set of rules. The US government and the US people pay reperations to the Japanese Americans who were interned during WW2. We have removed many of the obstacles for African Americans and Native Americans to allow them the same (or similar) rights as all other citizens. Thats why I think that its comparing apples to oranges expecting Saddam and the US to betreated equivalently in the court of public opinion. We can't wait for the guy to actually develop nukes and bring one into the US on a freighter. And based on the recent history of the man I don't honestly believe that he would have any problems doing such a thing (or hlping someone else do it) if he thought he could get away with it. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?

David Wulff

Firstly... I was? I (and others) thought I was making a general comment that has nothing but similarities in common with either the US or Iraq. Secondly... even give your explanation how does your reply follow mine? :confused:

David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk I am only here to amuse myself. Anyone else is a bonus.

h.a.s: 0.0.4

David Wulff

OMG, I honestly cannot believe you had the gall to say that, not even taking into account our past interactions. That is poor. And *that* is me being as polite as I dare. :omg:

David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk I am only here to amuse myself. Anyone else is a bonus.

h.a.s: -5.0.5

Chris Austin

I can't disagree with you on your point Doug. I just want there to be non-war way out of this. quorum pars magna fui