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.
posted by Alva Goldbook at 11:26 PM
7 Comments:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.'
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.
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.
Post a Comment
<< Home