Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KLP who wrote (138363)	6/29/2004 6:43:48 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

<It will be interesting to see exactly how any lawyers will justify Saddam's actions.....> I'm happy to help. Saddam was under threat from the Kurds and Shiites so had to kill a whole lot of them to get them to submit. He didn't kill the whole lot, just enough to shut them up and get them to behave. That's what he did to his military people too. And his government people. And anyone else who threatened his position, or might look as though they would [on the pre-emptive principle that the USA has adopted as official policy]. He also used torture to extract information, but of less sophisticated kind than that of the USA which used PhD-level psychological theory to gain co-operation and information, not to mention the threat of being handed over to that Saddam lookalike "General" Dostum, plus the other "stress" activities which were applied, as seen on tv. What WWII allies did was nuke and firebomb whole cities full of civilians when we were under threat. USA/NZ also did napalming of civilians [Vietnam]. That was seriously large scale genocide! Women, children, old, crippled, all sorts, up in flames. Plus, it was only last century [same as Saddam] that gas was used in WWI [my mother's uncle had gas injury to contend with all his life]. Anyway, being President, like King George II, Saddam gets to write a memo [or dictate it] saying what comprises torture and what doesn't. He says what human rights are. He is the law. So he can't break the law. And there isn't any international law. Heck, even the USA won't submit to international law, even in the case of war criminals! Saddam seems to have been a regular bloke, doing what tough guys do. It seems a bit unfair to pick on him. How come Milosevic gets sent for cruel and unusual punishment in Den Hague by fleets of laywers and eternal trial, but Saddam gets the local treatment? Saddam was the law. Legitimately too as you can see from all the support the USA gave him over the years. Donald Rumsfeld himself even went and shook hands and made nice. There's an underlying rule of law that the laws aren't made up to apply to the past. Imagine how many parking tickets could be given out! Film a street, then introduce a retroactive law and send all the people with cars parked on the street a bill. I think King George II and Saddam should each have a six-gun and at High Noon they should have a duel; 10 paces turn and fire. Mano a Mano. In a lawless world, where toughest guy rulz, that's how real men do it. Mqurice