When will Saddam's accomplices join him?

[NimChief]

Ignoring the Kangaroo Court, and the show trial.

I was just wondering...

When will Saddam's accomplices join him in death?

For the dense posters, I'm referring to of Donald Rumsfeld.


The ex-Defence secretary of America.

[Your Lame Sister]

what's wrong with ol' rumsfy?

[NimChief]

what's wrong with ol' rumsfy?

I wouldn't adorn such a an affectionate name...to the man responsible for supporting the most brutal dictator in the region.

When someone can get evidence that will stand in court that Rumsfeld is guilty of war crimes and not just doing the job of being the second highest ranking civilian commander of the military.

This should be enough.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTldYbqlJc8

Why would the "victorious" (I use that term very loosely) send it's own to the gallows?

Excuse me if I'm mistaken...

But I could've sworn the trial was being run by Iraqis for Iraqis ...too punish those who had supported the human rights crimes Saddam commited in Iraq.

I didn't realise the US were really pulling the strings.

To think I thought Iraq was a democratic...independent nation.

[Last Roman]

Excuse me if I'm mistaken...

But I could've sworn the trial was being run by Iraqis for Iraqis ...too punish those who had supported the human rights crimes Saddam commited in Iraq.

I didn't realise the US were really pulling the strings.

To think I thought Iraq was a democratic...independent nation.

And my point still stands. Why would the US gov't send Rummy to Iraq to be tried? You think Bush would allow it? You're letting your emotions get in the way of your argument.

[Gaidin]

This should be enough.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTldYbqlJc8

ZOMG YOU FOUND A VIDEO OF RUMSFELD VISITING IRAQ WHEN WE WERE ALLIES. YOU'RE SPECIAL.

No seriously...you really are.

(you did notice the part where his hair wasn't grey, yes?)

[NimChief]

ZOMG YOU FOUND A VIDEO OF RUMSFELD VISITING IRAQ WHEN WE WERE ALLIES. YOU'RE SPECIAL.

No seriously...you really are.

(you did notice the part where his hair wasn't grey, yes?)

Thanks,

That video was actually the point where Rumsfeld solidified US support for Iraq through Intelligence and military avenues. (in secret and contrary to America’s official neutrality)

Rumslfeld’s own commtieee, on retrun too America noted:

"with the essential assistance of foreign firms and the US, Iraq ha[s] become able to deploy and use CW and probably has built up large reserves of CW for further use"

CW = Chemical weapons.

The same Chemical Weapons used in the Halabja killings, for which Saddam was executed on.

Didn't I put a warning at the start for the dim-witted?

[NimChief]

You do realize that Rumsfeld didn't use the chemical weapons? You do realize that Saddam is the one that used them?

Did he?

Was he the one that pushed the button?

Didn't put much thought into that.

[Vhailor]

Ok so...you want to put Rumsfeld on trial for how Saddam used the chemical weapons?

Wow...thats...stupid.

You do realize that Rumsfeld didn't use the chemical weapons? You do realize that Saddam is the one that used them?

So...why should we try Rumsfeld for Saddam's actions? Where's the legitimacy on such a charge?

Legitimacy is just a matter of perception it seems but Ill try and give you an example, someone sells a gun to eg a known fugitive that will propably use it for sth other than hunting deers. Isnt this guy's action punishable? Rumsfelt sold those weapons to Saddam, while he knew they would be likewise used. Why isnt this guy's action punishable?

PS And I thought the US bombed people for having chemical weapons, so why do they sell out that many? Do they just want to create reasons to invade when they feel like it?

[Gaidin]

Ignoring the Kangaroo Court, and the show trial.

I was just wondering...

When will Saddam's accomplices join him in death?

For the dense posters, I'm referring to of Donald Rumsfeld.


The ex-Defence secretary of America.

When someone can get evidence that will stand in court that Rumsfeld is guilty of war crimes and not just doing the job of being the second highest ranking civilian commander of the military.

Don't get me wrong now, I don't like Rumsfeld any more than anybody else...but uhh...let's just end it with good luck.

[Last Roman]

If you seriously think that ol' Rummy is going to get the noose (or needle) then you are sadly naive. Why would the "victorious" (I use that term very loosely) send it's own to the gallows?

And as much as I hate the man, I'm not sure what he's done illegal.

And I don't think the "dense" part was at all necessary.

[Vhailor]

Same day Bush(and co) gets what he deserves for the slaughter of thousands, aka not in this lifetime.

PS Did anyone say double standards... anyone? Didnt think so.

[Last Roman]

Same day Bush(and co) gets what he deserves for the slaughter of thousands, aka not in this lifetime.

slightly different. One directly ordered the killing of innocents, the other did so through war, in which there is always civilian causalities.

I'm not saying I support Bush or the war (quite the opposite in fact) but you can't really compare the two.

[Vhailor]

slightly different. One directly ordered the killing of innocents, the other did so through war, in which there is always civilian causalities.

Only he was the one who ordered the war, unless the US military acts on its own of course, therefore I see no difference, both ordered the killing of innocents.
Series of events:
Saddam: orders->killings
Bush: orders->war>killings aka orders->killings
Yep no difference at all.

[Gaidin]

Only he was the one who ordered the war, unless the US military acts on its own of course, therefore I see no difference, both ordered the killing of innocents.
Series of events:
Saddam: orders->killings
Bush: orders->war>killings aka orders->killings
Yep no difference at all.

Ordering a war against a regime where people 'not involved'(I lack a better term so no flak please) get caught in the crossfire is totally different than blatantly ordering the killing of those 'not involved'.

There is no way the two situations can be equated.

[Vhailor]

There is no way the two situations can be equated.

I just did equate them and as for all this "that cant be" "there are differences etc" this is just wordplay and politics, the essence remains the same, orders->killings.

PS And I actually am quite a pacifist. Also the term war criminal is mere propaganda and I refuse to acknowledge it or give it any merit.

[Last Roman]

Only he was the one who ordered the war, unless the US military acts on its own of course, therefore I see no difference, both ordered the killing of innocents.
Series of events:
Saddam: orders->killings
Bush: orders->war>killings aka orders->killings
Yep no difference at all.

by that logic, any man who started a war is a war criminal. So unless you're a total pacifist...

[Freddie]

For the dense posters....

Oh dear, that's not the best way to endear yourself to the TWC community.

A rhetorical question to start a thread means only one thing.

[Ó Cathasaigh]

Yep no difference at all.

You live in a fairy land that I, nor anyone here, ever wishes to visit....Dementia land.

[the_mango55]

Ignoring the Kangaroo Court, and the show trial.

I was just wondering...

When will Saddam's accomplices join him in death?

For the dense posters, I'm referring to of Donald Rumsfeld.


The ex-Defence secretary of America.

Probably in 10-20 years

He's pretty old.

[Ó Cathasaigh]

Vhailor

Let me quote a previous post for you.

You're wrong.

Thank you, and Good'day