Wednesday, October 19, 2005

Saddam Pleads Innocent To War Crimes Charges He Committed With US Aid.

Former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein pleaded not guilty as his war crimes trial began in Baghdad on Wednesday. Saddam was defiant saying, “I preserve my constitutional rights as the president of Iraq. I do not recognize the body that has authorized you and I don’t recognize this aggression.” Saddam went on to say that “I do not respond to this so-called court, with all due respect.”

The trail have been criticized by Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch because the proceedings have failed to meet international standards.

Hussein is facing charges that he executed 143 Shiite Iraqis from Dujail in July of 1982, after the villagers made an attempt on Hussein’s life. Less than a year and half later, Hussein met with US envoy Donald Rumsfeld.

16 Comments:

Blogger MiamiMiami said...

So if I follow your logic correctly then this would make sense:

If you lent me money and I used that money to buy a car with it and then I used that car to ram it into a nursing home and killed everyone in it then you are as guilty as I am?

6:16 AM  
Blogger Alva Goldbook said...

Miami,
there is a crime known as "aiding and abetting." If I sell you a car that you proposely ram into a nursing home, I may not be just as guilty as you. But if I then give you 5 more cars after you rammed it into a nursing home, then indeed I am.

12:52 AM  
Blogger MiamiMiami said...

No you are definitely wrong. You seem to think that personal responsiblity had nothing to do with it. Just because someone gave him the means to which to wreak havok does not make them complicit in the act. The ultimate blame falls on Saddam as he made the choice to use those weapons.

However you reasoning seems to fall in line with the typical left-wing wacko lunacy of the day of "It's not my fault".

2:48 PM  
Blogger M A F said...

The appropriate analogy to verify Alva's logic is the liability of a bartender who can be sued if they serve a intoxicated patron who then drives under the influence and kills one individual or a group of people.

So following the analogy(logic), the US would be the bartender and Hussein the liquored up drunk who uses his weapon(car) to kill innnocent people. The US should have cut him off but chose not to because they were hoping that a drunk Hussein would use his weapon(car) to kill Iran's Ayatollah only he killed other civilians (his own) and now the US liable.

7:44 PM  
Blogger MiamiMiami said...

The appropriate analogy to verify Alva's logic is the liability of a bartender who can be sued if they serve a intoxicated patron who then drives under the influence and kills one individual or a group of people.

======>Again it still boils down to the personal responsilbity of the person drinking. You cannot take that out of the equation.

So following the analogy(logic), the US would be the bartender and Hussein the liquored up drunk who uses his weapon(car) to kill innnocent people. The US should have cut him off but chose not to because they were hoping that a drunk Hussein would use his weapon(car) to kill Iran's Ayatollah only he killed other civilians (his own) and now the US liable.

======>You are too quick to remove Saddam's personal responsibility out of the equation. But to hear another liberal excuse bad behavior is nothing new. Especially when they can blame the US for it.

7:44 PM

10:51 AM  
Blogger M A F said...

Apparently your reading comprehension is like your omniscience, lacking.

First off, I didn't try to "take out of the equation" the drinkers "personal responsibility." I provided a context for Alva's argument in contrast to your proffered comments.

Clearly the only one here trying to "excuse bad behavior" is you miamimiami.

I hardly "excused Saddam" as you are want to assert. I pointed out a context of liability for the US. This is after all what you sought to deny in your previous posts. My analogy is most aprapos to this discussion despite your contrary comments.

11:33 PM  
Blogger MiamiMiami said...

Sorry I couldn't respond sooner I have been out helping in the recovery since Wilma came thorugh. But don't think I have forgotten....

Apparently your reading comprehension is like your omniscience, lacking.

=====>Hmmmm. My reading comprehension is fine. I think it'sa your lack of common sense that makes you so frantic.

First off, I didn't try to "take out of the equation" the drinkers "personal responsibility." I provided a context for Alva's argument in contrast to your proffered comments.

=====>Yes you did. You are equating Saddam's actions to a bartender giving alcohol to a drunk driver as if neither the drunk driver or Saddam had anything to do with their choices.

Clearly the only one here trying to "excuse bad behavior" is you miamimiami.

=====>Really. I am not the one who is making the United States complicit with Saddam's choice to wreak havok with his neighbors.

I hardly "excused Saddam" as you are want to assert.
=====>Yes you did but again I digress....


I pointed out a context of liability for the US.
=====>Which has none.

This is after all what you sought to deny in your previous posts. My analogy is most aprapos to this discussion despite your contrary comments.
======>NO. To make the US a co-defendant in Saddam's actions is to remove the act of Saddam actually making the choice to use these weapons the way he did. The fact is the the US has provided these same type of weapons and worse ones to toher countries and those countries have not done the same things Saddam did. So if these same countries were given the same or better technology and did not use them means that they CHOSE NOT to use them and Saddam CHOSE TO. Your analogy only works if you believe that your actions are dependant on whether someone gives you the means to do wrong to others rather than take responsability to make good or bad decisions. Saddam's actions were not perpetuated by the US but by his DECISION to do his neighbors wrong. This is the problem with liberalism. Liberals want to make everyone else responsbile for their bad decisions and bad behavior instead of simply taqking personal responsilbity.

But again you may not want to hear that seeing as how I totally derailed your blame America first excuse.

2:58 PM  
Blogger M A F said...

Frantic? Hardly. But as you have proven time and time again your omniscience is lacking. Oh hell non-existent.

Now then, all that typing and use of caps too and still my analogy stands. The US as a "Co-defendant"? No, the US (following the bartender analogy) would stand trial for their individual actions and not as a co-defendant. So, two trials, one for the drunk and another for the bartender.

The complicity of the US is also measured in the military intelligence the US provided to Hussein in his war against Iran. After all what good are those US weapons if you can't hit anything with them.

So your latter portion of your comments completely avoid the topic of discussion so you can once again try your had at obfuscation. I am all for personal responsibility including that which holds Bush and his administration accountable.

Like I already posted, you may be "right" but you are definately not correct.

4:06 PM  
Blogger MiamiMiami said...

Frantic? Hardly. But as you have proven time and time again your omniscience is lacking. Oh hell non-existent.

=====>omniscient |ämˈni sh ənt| adjective knowing everything : e.g. the story is told by an omniscient narrator. SO then am I supposed to be ashamed of not knowing everything or is this just your $20 word of the month that you throw around in order to make some sort of impression that you are intelligent? I mean do you use this word at cocktail parties or something? Of course I don't know everything. So what's your point? I do know certain things and I believe certain things to be true as do you. So the fact that I lack the ability to know everything is something to be heckled for? Or did I just show you what the word meant for the first time?


Now then, all that typing and use of caps too and still my analogy stands. The US as a "Co-defendant"? No, the US (following the bartender analogy) would stand trial for their individual actions and not as a co-defendant. So, two trials, one for the drunk and another for the bartender.\\

=====>Again the only way that your analogy would hold water is if you were to excuse or completely remove the personal responsiblity of the drinker not to get drunk. Does the bartender have a liability to prevent a grown adult from entering the establishment? At what point do you have to say to the drinker that he had the ability to decide not to drink? When do you assign personal responsiblity to the drinker as an adult person? The ONLY responsiblity the bartender has in this case would be to acertain that the drinker was of age to drink and after that it is totally and completely the responsibility of the adult drinker to decide whether or not he is going to get drunk not the bartender. Again you have to keep in mind that the drinker is responsible for his own actions not the bartender. In Florida you will be hard pressed to see a trial where the drunk driver is tried and then they go after the bartender. And how far do you extend this type of liability or moreover who else do you blame for your bad decision? I mean do we sue the salesman of the car he drove durnk in? Do we try the tire manufacturer who produced the tires? After all if they had never sold him the tires the car would have never gone forward in the first place to drive him to the bar! Do we try the entire automobile industry for producing this weapon that was used by the drunk driver as well? I mean without the car then the drunk wouldn't have even been able to drive drunbk in the first place! Where does it end????

The complicity of the US is also measured in the military intelligence the US provided to Hussein in his war against Iran. After all what good are those US weapons if you can't hit anything with them.

=====>Again we provide CUba with military intelligence as well. Anyone entering their waters that we don't recognize the Cuban navy is notified. Castro has yet to attack Jamaica though. We provide intelligence services for Canada as well. When's the last time Canada attacked anyone? We provide intelligence for many countries all over the world who have not attacked anyone. Big deal!!

So your latter portion of your comments completely avoid the topic of discussion so you can once again try your had at obfuscation. I am all for personal responsibility including that which holds Bush and his administration accountable.

=====>obfuscate |ˈäbfəˌskāt| verb [ trans. ] render obscure, unclear, or unintelligible. Another $20 word! Nothing I have said is unclear or unintelligable. In fact your analogy of the bartender and the drinker is not even well-founded in law. That form of liablity has been shot down over and over again in Florida civil courts. The courts here have overwhelmingly decided that an adult of consenting age (21 here in Florida) has the ultimate responsibilty over their actions when they drink. Drunk drivers are dealt with very severely here and I can't remember the last time any drunk driver was let off the hook or exonerated because they blamed the bartender. Moreover the bartender is usually called in to testify to the amount of alcohol they drank in order to solidify their case against the drunk driver.

Like I already posted, you may be "right" but you are definately not correct.

======>Not only am I right I am very correct. And no matter how many words you pick up in your college english class will change that.

7:03 PM  
Blogger M A F said...

I suppose I could have chosen some other $20 dollar word, but I chose the word omniscient because it is antithetical to your claims/ability. (I am glad that you finally looked it up.)

I want to thank you for the laughs. It was really quite funny to read the following, "So the fact that I lack the ability to know everything is something to be heckled for? Or did I just show you what the word meant for the first time?"

So miamimiami, how can I possibly be "heckling" you if this is the first time I have seen what the word omniscient "meant?" What was that you ended the post with, that you are "very correct"? Thanks for the moment of irony.

Oh but I digress. I should keep to the subject at hand, that being the analogy of the drunk (Saddam) and the bartender (the US).

You go on and on about extranious information and still you fail to disprove the analogy. I can't help it that you keep ignoring the obvious with your repeated attempts to secure a pyrrhic victory.

You once again miss the point particularly with your mention of Cuba and Canada. As analogies go, these really misses the mark.

Glad that to see you are expanding your vocabulary. You are most definately trying to make the subject of the comparative analogy unclear through obfuscation. But to be fair, when I use the word obfuscation I refer to the following definition that you 'missed.'

'To make so confused or opaque as to be difficult to perceive or understand: “A great effort was made... to obscure or obfuscate the truth”'

I refer you again to your statement about being 'correct.'

8:18 PM  
Blogger MiamiMiami said...

Oh you almost make this too easy.....


Where do we start? The beginning I guess.

I suppose I could have chosen some other $20 dollar word, but I chose the word omniscient because it is antithetical to your claims/ability. (I am glad that you finally looked it up.)

=====>I looked it up so that you could see your poor use of vocabulary. I was doing you a favor, I thought.

I want to thank you for the laughs. It was really quite funny to read the following, "So the fact that I lack the ability to know everything is something to be heckled for? Or did I just show you what the word meant for the first time?"

======>Well you did use the word not I. It's ok to laugh at yourself from time to time. It's healthy.

So miamimiami, how can I possibly be "heckling" you if this is the first time I have seen what the word omniscient "meant?" What was that you ended the post with, that you are "very correct"? Thanks for the moment of irony.

======>Who stated that it was the first time you heckled me. It was only the first time I pointed it out. Again if you don't know the proper use of the word maybe it's best that you leave in the book you found it in.

Oh but I digress. I should keep to the subject at hand, that being the analogy of the drunk (Saddam) and the bartender (the US).

======>If you can please...

You go on and on about extranious information and still you fail to disprove the analogy. I can't help it that you keep ignoring the obvious with your repeated attempts to secure a pyrrhic victory.

=======>Oooohhhh. This one was a good choice.
pyrrhic |ˈpirik| (noun) a metrical foot of two short or unaccented syllables. I have not only disproved your analogy but have teared it to pieces. Also you need better use of words. You see no matter how many really exciting and "intelligent" sounding words you use to propgate your nonsense it still fails to make the smell test. Sorry....you lose again.

You once again miss the point particularly with your mention of Cuba and Canada. As analogies go, these really misses the mark.

======>I guess only because they make sense. This again is the reason why you still cannot prove the analogy to the US-Saddam theory being proposed especially when the logic you are trying to use fails again and again.

Glad that to see you are expanding your vocabulary.
======>I am only trying to help you improve yours. I try to stick with words I know how to use. I find that by using even the "simplest" of terms I can effectively get my point across without having to search for words that try to fool others into thinking I am intelligent and failing when they are used incorrectly. Sound familiar?

You are most definately trying to make the subject of the comparative analogy unclear through obfuscation. But to be fair, when I use the word obfuscation I refer to the following definition that you 'missed.'

'To make so confused or opaque as to be difficult to perceive or understand: “A great effort was made... to obscure or obfuscate the truth”'

I refer you again to your statement about being 'correct.'

======>That would mean that what I said was "obscure" or an attempt to "obscure". The problem is that I have effectively and simply torn your little theory to shreads. I have applied you silly logic (or lack thereof) and shown you how it fails. But alas, this is the plight of the misguided liberal. The world of the double meanings and the conflicting feelings.....

10:21 AM  
Blogger M A F said...

Yet more obfuscating on you part. You should put the shovel down as the hole that you have dug for yourself is deep enough. (The bartender/drunk analogy still stands.)

Now then, it does appear that I used the term 'pyrrhic victory' whereas you counter with the word "pyrrhic." Such obfuscation on your part. (Even when provided a link you still couldn't get it correct.)

Pyr·rhic victory
n.
A victory that is offset by staggering losses.

Pyrrhic victory
A victory that is offset by staggering losses, as in The campaign was so divisive that even though he won the election it was a Pyrrhic victory. This expression alludes to Kind Pyrrhus of Epirus, who defeated the Romans at Asculum in a.d. 279, but lost his best officers and many of his troops. Pyrrhus then said: "Another such victory and we are lost." In English the term was first recorded (used figuratively) in 1879.

pyrrhic victory
Pyrrhic victory was Word of the Day on July 16, 2003.

pyrrhic victory
n : a victory that is won by incurring terrible losses [syn: Pyrrhic victory]
.

Oh last point, you once again demonstrate that your comprehnsion skills are woefully inadequate as I wrote, 'So miamimiami, how can I possibly be "heckling" you if this is the first time I have seen what the word omniscient "meant?"'

Did you get that 'the first time I have seen what the word omniscient "meant"'

Now lets contrast my words to your response that serves as a fine example of your difficulties with reading comprehension, you wrote "Who stated that it was the first time you heckled me. It was only the first time I pointed it out."

Apparently you have opted for a strategy of obfuscation in hopes of obtaining your pyrrhic victory which is undone by your difficulties with reading comprehension.

2:16 PM  
Blogger MiamiMiami said...

It's almost asif you like the punishment....strange.

Oh well here we go again.

Yet more obfuscating on you part. You should put the shovel down as the hole that you have dug for yourself is deep enough. (The bartender/drunk analogy still stands.)

======>Oh yeah. It sure does....not. Too bad that you are still too drunk to see it though. That was a pun see? A play on words! HAHA! Your analogy has failed dismally.

Now then, it does appear that I used the term 'pyrrhic victory' whereas you counter with the word "pyrrhic." Such obfuscation on your part. (Even when provided a link you still couldn't get it correct.)

Pyr·rhic victory
n.
A victory that is offset by staggering losses.

Pyrrhic victory
A victory that is offset by staggering losses, as in The campaign was so divisive that even though he won the election it was a Pyrrhic victory. This expression alludes to Kind Pyrrhus of Epirus, who defeated the Romans at Asculum in a.d. 279, but lost his best officers and many of his troops. Pyrrhus then said: "Another such victory and we are lost." In English the term was first recorded (used figuratively) in 1879.

pyrrhic victory
Pyrrhic victory was Word of the Day on July 16, 2003.

pyrrhic victory
n : a victory that is won by incurring terrible losses [syn: Pyrrhic victory].


======>So then your use of the word only validates the fact that I DID have a victory. So your use is still an invalid one as you tried to use the word to indicate that my point was not made and your logic of the bartender/drunk driver was a valid one. A costly victory that incurred great losses, but a victory none the less. Damn I am good! You might want to use that shovel you offered me earlier boy!

Oh last point, you once again demonstrate that your comprehnsion skills are woefully inadequate as I wrote, 'So miamimiami, how can I possibly be "heckling" you if this is the first time I have seen what the word omniscient "meant?"'

Did you get that 'the first time I have seen what the word omniscient "meant"'

=====>Your "trying to heckle me as to the fact that I didn't know everything" was my way of showing you your inability to use the word correctly. You were trying to sound somewhat intelligent (hard for most liberals I know) and I had to explain to you that your use of the word only showed how woefully inadequate you were at arguing your point.


Now lets contrast my words to your response that serves as a fine example of your difficulties with reading comprehension, you wrote "Who stated that it was the first time you heckled me. It was only the first time I pointed it out."

Apparently you have opted for a strategy of obfuscation in hopes of obtaining your pyrrhic victory which is undone by your difficulties with reading comprehension.

======>Obviously you can't back up your analogy and have chosen to keep it on the poor use of your expensive vocabulary. Look I know it's hard for you to keep up with the real world politics and sparring with a seasoned pro like myself isn't really a fair fight. For this I must apologize. I didn't realize that you can't possibly understand how sadly you keep slipping. Sorry but you might try arguing this point with someone in a chat room somewhere you know with a 16 or 17 year old.

The root of the matter is that your analogy fails on many points. The fact that you have tried so desperately, in vain, to make this about "reading comprehension" and "obfuscation" is very telling of a person whose argument has completely run out of gas. I have seen it many times before. It is much like the defendant arguing over the time of day or the color of the sky in order to steer the jury away from the fact he killed someone.

By the way your use of the word is actually true to some extent. To "obfuscate" is to leave someone bewildered or being left confused from a failure to understand. Obviously you can't understand the failing logic of your analogy and I have left you bewildered and confused. For this I apologize because I also failed to realize that I was trying to discuss this original topic with an amateur. That's not your fault, it's mine. Sorry and please accept my apology for abusing you so.

4:43 PM  
Blogger M A F said...

Again you demonstrate your difficulties with reading comprehension.

Further evidence to this point is measured in the following statement where you falsely assert, "So then your use of the word only validates the fact that I DID have a victory."

Wrong. You are (not suprisingly) incorrect yet again. Please note the usage of the term pyrrhic victory in the following sentence.

'I can't help it that you keep ignoring the obvious with your repeated attempts to secure a pyrrhic victory.'

Hardly confirmation of any "victory" on your part. This is yet another (repeated) attempt on your part miamimiami to secure a pyrrhic victory. You can always venture another attempt.

So much for your claim of being a "a seasoned pro." This is yet another one of those examples where you maybe 'right' because you sure as hell aren't anywhere close to being correct.

I really appreciate the chance to engage a "pro" like yourself. And remember, I'm not laughing with you I am laughing at you.

10:53 PM  
Blogger MiamiMiami said...

Must be something in the water.....


Again you demonstrate your difficulties with reading comprehension.

=====>Especially since you have completely abandoned ANY attempt to stay on the subject. Must be tough to have run out of evidence to support your analogy. Again you are dealing with a pro.

Further evidence to this point is measured in the following statement where you falsely assert, "So then your use of the word only validates the fact that I DID have a victory."

Wrong. You are (not suprisingly) incorrect yet again. Please note the usage of the term pyrrhic victory in the following sentence.

'I can't help it that you keep ignoring the obvious with your repeated attempts to secure a pyrrhic victory.'

Hardly confirmation of any "victory" on your part. This is yet another (repeated) attempt on your part miamimiami to secure a pyrrhic victory. You can always venture another attempt.

======>What attempt? I know already that I have won this debate about 5 posts ago. You have obviously run out of steam or you wouldn't have even stayed on the tangent of "pyrrhic victories" or "obfuscations". This is apparently your attempt to secure your own pyrric victory in the face of such obvious defeat.

So much for your claim of being a "a seasoned pro."
=====>Yeah I mean I only tore your analogy to pieces to the point that you can't even continue to defend it.

This is yet another one of those examples where you maybe 'right' because you sure as hell aren't anywhere close to being correct.

======>Yup. You must be correct. Well you know what they say about wrestling with a pig. You again can't defend your silly analogy and have to resort to a feeble attempt at what you consider a comprehension problem. The real failing in comprhension actually happened a few posts agao. This is when you failed to comprehend the fallacy of your analogy and how it failed on many levels. It fails in the real world, it fails in the face of basic logic, it fails on the basis of any kind of legal precedent, it fails in the presence of what most people consider a part of taking on adult responsiblity. This is the most prevelant and most profound comprehension problem that we have here.

I really appreciate the chance to engage a "pro" like yourself. And remember, I'm not laughing with you I am laughing at you.

======>Well I wouldn't laugh too hard. I mean you really have no more steam left in your argument. By the way I wasn't laughing when I wrote that. I really was apologizing. I will even do it again. I am sorry that you had the misfortune of having to debate this with a pro like myself. To add to this apology I feel that I owe you some sort of apology for not picking up on that fact and encouring you to continue on your bad analogy and for that I really am beggin your forgiveness. I know better than that. So maybe if you found some humor then I shouldn't feel so bad but again I do apologize. Sorry.....

5:45 AM  
Blogger MiamiMiami said...

Must be something in the water.....


Again you demonstrate your difficulties with reading comprehension.

=====>Especially since you have completely abandoned ANY attempt to stay on the subject. Must be tough to have run out of evidence to support your analogy. Again you are dealing with a pro.

Further evidence to this point is measured in the following statement where you falsely assert, "So then your use of the word only validates the fact that I DID have a victory."

Wrong. You are (not suprisingly) incorrect yet again. Please note the usage of the term pyrrhic victory in the following sentence.

'I can't help it that you keep ignoring the obvious with your repeated attempts to secure a pyrrhic victory.'

Hardly confirmation of any "victory" on your part. This is yet another (repeated) attempt on your part miamimiami to secure a pyrrhic victory. You can always venture another attempt.

======>What attempt? I know already that I have won this debate about 5 posts ago. You have obviously run out of steam or you wouldn't have even stayed on the tangent of "pyrrhic victories" or "obfuscations". This is apparently your attempt to secure your own pyrric victory in the face of such obvious defeat.

So much for your claim of being a "a seasoned pro."
=====>Yeah I mean I only tore your analogy to pieces to the point that you can't even continue to defend it.

This is yet another one of those examples where you maybe 'right' because you sure as hell aren't anywhere close to being correct.

======>Yup. You must be correct. Well you know what they say about wrestling with a pig. You again can't defend your silly analogy and have to resort to a feeble attempt at what you consider a comprehension problem. The real failing in comprhension actually happened a few posts agao. This is when you failed to comprehend the fallacy of your analogy and how it failed on many levels. It fails in the real world, it fails in the face of basic logic, it fails on the basis of any kind of legal precedent, it fails in the presence of what most people consider a part of taking on adult responsiblity. This is the most prevelant and most profound comprehension problem that we have here.

I really appreciate the chance to engage a "pro" like yourself. And remember, I'm not laughing with you I am laughing at you.

======>Well I wouldn't laugh too hard. I mean you really have no more steam left in your argument. By the way I wasn't laughing when I wrote that. I really was apologizing. I will even do it again. I am sorry that you had the misfortune of having to debate this with a pro like myself. To add to this apology I feel that I owe you some sort of apology for not picking up on that fact and encouring you to continue on your bad analogy and for that I really am beggin your forgiveness. I know better than that. So maybe if you found some humor then I shouldn't feel so bad but again I do apologize. Sorry.....

5:45 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home