Subject:
|
I fear we are about to create yet another martyr.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 2 Jul 2004 20:40:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1676 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur wrote:
| |
| |
| |
Seems obvious even to you that is NOT about freeing the people of Iraq,
but controlling the flow of oil (which was flowing anyway, just not our
way).
|
Not controlling the flow of oil (or do you have cites for that?),
|
The last time I looked Bush:
- had ~140,000 troops in Iraq.
|
At the request of the sovereign, democratic nation of Iraq.
|
Sovereign, maybe, democratic no way. At least until proper elections take
place, Iraq is still a technical dictatorship. So call it whatever else you
want to at this stage.
| |
| |
- had installed a dictator in iraq.
|
Look again. You’ll see elections are on the horizon-- a concept quite
foreign to dictators.
| |
- was conducting show trials there.
|
I have no response to the ignorance of this one.
|
You may be right, but I wouldn’t be so vehement in condemning Scott’s claim.
Actually, and given that Milosevic’s trial has not yet finished in the Hague,
I don’t know what exactly are the precedents for Saddam’s trial (nor can I
understand the pretense cover of “universal acceptance” of this court’s
verdict).
|
My comment was also meant to cover expedient “trial” of the chap caught abusing
prisoners in Iraq… I think it lasted ~1 hour.
| |
Either Saddam can be tried in the Hague, or Milosevic in
Belgrade... makes some sense at least. If a court is designed to try only one
case and then disbanded, it’s validity is somewhat lame, wouldn’t you say? It
ceases to be part of a Justice system and becomes a vindictive system.
|
I don’t have time to list my concerns about SH’s appearance yesterday. It is
suffice to say that I have yet to read one single report which agrees he’ll get
a fair trial. For instance,read
this: “Saddam’s
lawyers will challenge the legitimacy of the court, which was set up by the
governing council, a now disbanded group of advisers appointed by the US
occupation authorities. The fact that the tribunal is being run by Mr Chalabi,
nephew of one of Iraq’s most vociferous Saddam opponents, Ahmad Chalabi, will
also raise questions over neutrality.”
...and on Salem
Chalbi: Salem himself is linked directly to the Bush administration. His
business partner Mark Zell runs a law firm in partnership with U.S.
Undersecretary of Defense and long-time neo-conservative Iraqi War hawk Douglas
Jay Feith - whose office oversees the graft and scandal-ridden reconstruction
program in Iraq.”
Does that sound “fair” to anyone?
I fear we are about to create yet another martyr.
Scott A
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Fair use and allusion?
|
| (...) Sovereign, maybe, democratic no way. At least until proper elections take place, Iraq is still a technical dictatorship. So call it whatever else you want to at this stage. (...) You may be right, but I wouldn't be so vehement in condemning (...) (20 years ago, 2-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
106 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
