Aardvark Posted July 5, 2004 Share Posted July 5, 2004 Ah, so i'm a 'screwball' because i ask you to back up your assertions with somekind of evidence. If that makes a screwball then i'm proud to be one. I'm not asking for swathes of evidence, it's just when you make vague statements about the West backing for Sadaams regime something more than the restoration of diplomatic relations in 1984 seems necessary to back up your assertion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budullewraagh Posted July 5, 2004 Share Posted July 5, 2004 it is true. since this isn't my argument i won't find sources, but i know they exist. i also know that it is common knowledge that this happened. also, i would like to add that the united states funded osama bin laden in the 1980s. he got about $3 billion from us. in 2001 we gave him $245 million Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J'Dona Posted July 5, 2004 Share Posted July 5, 2004 Ah' date=' so i'm a 'screwball' because i ask you to back up your assertions with somekind of evidence. If that makes a screwball then i'm proud to be one. I'm not asking for swathes of evidence, it's just when you make vague statements about the West backing for Sadaams regime something more than the restoration of diplomatic relations in 1984 seems necessary to back up your assertion.[/quote']Hang on a second... you say you don't want 'swathes of evidence', but we provide them, and you say we're making general statements without any evidence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aardvark Posted July 5, 2004 Share Posted July 5, 2004 Your evidence consisted of CNN reporting that the USA didnt want Iran to win in the Iran-Iraq war. That doesnt seem enough to talk of the West backing Sadaam Hussien and so being terrified of an open trial with the details emerging, it all just seems a bit weak. I havent seen anything which indicates the Iraq was in any way a client state of the West. I'm not arguing that the West or the USA have never done anything wrong or got their hands dirty, merely that we need to be more rigourous if we are going to hold our governments accountable when they genuinely do behave badly. On another topic, that statement that Bin Laden received $3 billion aprox from the USA is intriuging. Where do those figures come from? I was under the impression that Bin Laden was independently wealthy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budullewraagh Posted July 5, 2004 Share Posted July 5, 2004 ah, but the us was too obsessed with beating the soviets. they funded bin laden's movement. http://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/binladen_profile.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J'Dona Posted July 5, 2004 Share Posted July 5, 2004 If the USA's reason for backing Iraq was that they didn't want Iran to win, then they still backing Iraq. Also, the other source (about 9600 words of text, with over 150 different sources) contains a lot of analytical review of the same situation, which you haven't mentioned in your last post. I only put the CNN link in there in case you thought I was only looking at liberal sources. Also note the bold text at the top of the CNN one: WASHINGTON (Creators Syndicate, Inc.) -- Sen. Robert Byrd, a master at hectoring executive branch witnesses, asked Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld a provocative question last week: Did the United States help Saddam Hussein produce weapons of biological warfare? Rumsfeld brushed off the Senate's 84-year-old president pro tem like a Pentagon reporter. But a paper trail indicates Rumsfeld should have answered yes.Tell me, if this is true, then how does it not suggest - in any way - US backing of Saddam Hussein? Doesn't the sale of arms and the assistance in construction of biological weapons count? If it isn't true, and you aren't trusting CNN news (which is a good idea), then what media outlets do you trust? I ask because I can assure you, it only gets more left-wing from there. I don't know much abouts transactions between the USA and the bin Laden family, so I can't say anything there, but can't you look up on this information yourself if you doubt it? We shouldn't have to be the only ones bringing up edivence, unless you intentionally want to make youself look uninformed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aardvark Posted July 5, 2004 Share Posted July 5, 2004 If it's true that the USA deliberately helped Iraq develop bbilogical weapons then i'd agree that constitued backing for Sadaams reign, i just haven't been able to find any of this so called paper trail. As for your sources, i generally prefer the more liberal left wing ones, i just dont automatically consider mine, or their, prejudicies to be correct without some serious backing. As for the Bin Laden matter, i have tried Googling on that. The BBC, usconservatives, americanfreepress, daily telegraph, hartford archives, marxist.com and on and on. The only evidence i can find of funding is indirect through the general funding of Mujhaeedin during the Soviet invasion of Afganistan, it is generally assumed some of this money will have reached Bin Laden, esp as at the time he still have good relations with Saudi Arabia. To jump from that to a figure of $3 billion reaching his organisation alone seems over the top, and i wonder why any money would go his way from the USA after the end of the Afghan war. the idea that the USA would still be funding him in 2001 is odd. That is why i am curious about his sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodhound Posted July 5, 2004 Author Share Posted July 5, 2004 Anyway, this thread seems to have gone off the point. The question is should Saddam be executed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budullewraagh Posted July 5, 2004 Share Posted July 5, 2004 To jump from that to a figure of $3 billion reaching his organisation alone seems over the top abc is not a valid source? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aardvark Posted July 5, 2004 Share Posted July 5, 2004 Your link to ABC states that the USA gave funding to the Mujhaeedin of $3 billion. That's not the same as giving Bin Ladin $3 billion, the Mujhaeedin was made of of several different groups and organisations, some of them rivals. For example general Dostrum recieved some of that funding and he was a rival of Bin Ladins. I think you have made a mistake in your assertion that the US gave Bin Ladin $3 billion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budullewraagh Posted July 5, 2004 Share Posted July 5, 2004 perhaps, but what do you suppose happened after the taliban came into power? yeah, that money went to bin laden Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodhound Posted July 5, 2004 Author Share Posted July 5, 2004 also a lot of IRA funding used to come from America, and the American Government did nothing to stop it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kbzon59 Posted July 6, 2004 Share Posted July 6, 2004 I have several reasons for Saddam not to be executed: 1) There has not been a formal law process against him 2) I am against death penalty in any case (someone sholud start another thread about this) 3) Who would execute him? USA, new Iraqi government? Whatever the case, he would be executed and, (if) trailed by those who benefited from his demotion. What I mean is that your counterpart can't be the executioner at the same time. 4) Strictly, Saddam cannot be accused of a lot of things, since most of what he did fits as war happenings or such. In other words, what he did is not different from what W is doing. 5) Executing Saddam would set such a precedent, traht evry president could be trialed. I am not saying that Saddam was a great man, by teh way Besides teh above reasobn, executing him would cheer many terrorist groups 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jordan Posted July 6, 2004 Share Posted July 6, 2004 1) There has not been a formal law process against him What do you mean? Do you mean he hasn't had a trial yet? That's still coming pretty soon. 2) I am against death penalty in any case (someone sholud start another thread about this) I can't really argue you on this one since it's an oppinion, but wouldn't you say Saddam sort of transcends the logic held against most criminals? 3) Who would execute him? USA, new Iraqi government? Whatever the case, he would be executed and, (if) trailed by those who benefited from his demotion. What I mean is that your counterpart can't be the executioner at the same time. The Iraqi government would execute him. He would be tried by a group of Iraqi's who most likely hate him (but that's what you get for being so cruel to your own country). As to your last sentence, I don't understand who you think his counterpart is. 4) Strictly, Saddam cannot be accused of a lot of things, since most of what he did fits as war happenings or such. In other words, what he did is not different from what W is doing. That would be a stretch for almost anyone, regaurdless of political affiliation, to say. 5) Executing Saddam would set such a precedent, traht evry president could be trialed. Again, I don't think you understand exactly what kind of leader Saddam was. It's tough to find many leaders to compare him to in today's world. One question, though. If they do execute him, where will they keep his body? You know there will be people who will try to steal it if they just bury it somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budullewraagh Posted July 6, 2004 Share Posted July 6, 2004 personally, i believe that the justice system should make it their goal to rehabilitate criminals rather than punish them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jordan Posted July 6, 2004 Share Posted July 6, 2004 Sure, but to what extent? How much are you willing to pay? How far from normal does the prisoner have to be before you don't waiste time trying to rehabilitate him/her? How do you ensure they really changed? Do you keep them in prison even after they've "changed'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted July 6, 2004 Share Posted July 6, 2004 I can't really argue you on this one since it's an oppinion, but wouldn't you say Saddam sort of transcends the logic held against most criminals? "The law is reason, free from passion." -- Aristotle In other words the reason we have law at all is so that we bring the same sanctions against the same crimes, and not cherry-pick punishments based on how much or how little we "like" the defendant. Again, I don't think you understand exactly what kind of leader Saddam was. It's tough to find many leaders to compare him to in today's world. That's very true - most of the other dictators are far, far worse. Re: my Pol Pot comment, which absolutely nobody seemed to get (possibly because society in general has deemed that abject failing as 'forgettable'). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budullewraagh Posted July 6, 2004 Share Posted July 6, 2004 as a nice compromise, one would still be required to serve the normal amount of time. it's not like we would force them to "change". rather, we should implure them to become better people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jordan Posted July 6, 2004 Share Posted July 6, 2004 In other words the reason we have law at all is so that we bring the same sanctions against the same crimes[/b'], and not cherry-pick punishments based on how much or how little we "like" the defendant. Sure. Can you list for me, say, five guys who have commited crimes on the scale of Saddam along with their punishment? Seriously, you guys know lots more about history than I do. So, on the scale of Saddam, who are five guys in the past 25 years or so and what are they doing right now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted July 6, 2004 Share Posted July 6, 2004 Sure. Can you list for me, say, five guys who have commited crimes on the scale of Saddam along with their punishment? Seriously, you guys know lots more about history than I do. So, on the scale of Saddam, who are five guys in the past 25 years or so and what are they doing right now? What will that show? I'm not saying that bad justice never occurs, just that it's a poor show to go around suggesting we toss due process to the wind before we have even started. You're asking for past examples, when there's a major one going on right now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jordan Posted July 6, 2004 Share Posted July 6, 2004 Alright, I seem to have misunderstood what you were saying. Kbzon59: I don't like the death penalty (typicly used on criminals convicted of a murder or maybe a few murders). Me: Saddam is in a different league than the guys you're used to thinking about in refrence to the death penalty. I think you might want to think this one through more than you did. Sayo: We need to try people by their crimes and not by our biases towards them. Me: Agreed, and historical precident says (if I'm not mistaken) that these guys don't usualy get life sentences, but rather death. Sayo: We need to sentence them in accordance with their crimes. Does that sound about right? If so, I do agree with you on that, though I still don't like Kbzon59 saying that he shouldn't die just because he doesn't like the death penalty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted July 6, 2004 Share Posted July 6, 2004 That's about it, yeah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jordan Posted July 6, 2004 Share Posted July 6, 2004 Great, so the issue is with Kbzon59 and not the both of you. Ok, now I just have to wait for him/her to come back online. Glad to see someone agrees with me for a change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bloodhound Posted July 6, 2004 Author Share Posted July 6, 2004 What will that show? I'm not saying that bad justice never occurs' date=' just that it's a poor show to go around suggesting we toss due process to the wind before we have even started. You're asking for past examples, when there's a major one going on right now? Altough I very much like the idea of ICC and would support it whole heartedly. there is too much beurocracy. The trail of milosevic has been going on for two years and the end is nowhere in sight. and with the recent new of his bad health, they arent sure if he can make it to court anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted July 6, 2004 Share Posted July 6, 2004 Great, so the issue is with Kbzon59 and not the both of you. Ok, now I just have to wait for him/her to come back online. Glad to see someone agrees with me for a change. lol A lot of the time I post things that look like a dispute rather than just 'adding thoughts', like in that "are heterosexuals homophobic" thread that's going on now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now