Un American or not we cannot try Saddam Hussain!

Originally posted by ArchAngel
Other than the Brits there are only token forces, and their presence in Iraq is not supported by the people of the nations they represent.

Yes token forces controlling half of iraq?
Yes thats a damm small token force.
They do have the support of the people of the UK, dont think they do? Look at the grieving that happens when a UK soldier is hurt or killed.

Because US run the show in Iraq when it comes to Saddam, US reserve the rights to do what ever it feels when it comes to the Country of Iraq and their former leader, international laws only applies US style.

Yes token forces controlling half of iraq?

Excuse me.

I should have included the Americas.

Other than the two no one has any significant presence in Iraq.

The Japanese forces hide in a base while being Guarded by 'Private Security Contractors'.

Originally posted by Justmytype
I know this is going to cause a frenzy but here me out on this.
We did not capture the flag meaning "we never took ownership of Iraq; we did not claim it thus meaning by Military Law Saddam Hussuain still is the president of Iraq which means his trial is just bogus.

What do you think?

Bogus or not, he deserves to tried by the best judges in the World.
He is guilty as sin for what he has done. He deserves what is coming to him.

Sorry, but the images of the Kurds he ordered gassed, still sticks in my mind.
There is a lot more we dont even about too. Just wait untill this is made public.

Why do people even give a damn about this type of murdering individual?

Originally posted by ArchAngel
Excuse me.
I should have included the Americas.
Other than the two no one has any significant presence in Iraq.

So no other nation who has lost soldiers, has no significance then?

when the kurds where murdered and when other shia muslims where killed everyone who does not should be reminded. Some people probably the majority of iraqi's are happy there is no more saddam. Just wish they would get on with governing themselves. The Iranians aren't helping things either. I support the brave soldiers who have no choice but to be their. British or American ( or other).

So no other nation who has lost soldiers, has no significance then?

I said nothing like that.

The SIZE of the other nations forces in Iraq is not a significant amount of the whole which is mostly Americans, and Mercenaries.

[edit on 21-10-2005 by ArchAngel]

Originally posted by ArchAngel

So no other nation who has lost soldiers, has no significance then?

I said nothing like that.

The SIZE of the other nations forces in Iraq is not a significant amount of the whole which is mostly Americans, and Mercenaries.

[edit on 21-10-2005 by ArchAngel]

Yes you did.

Originally posted by ArchAngel
Excuse me.
I should have included the Americas.
Other than the two no one has any significant presence in Iraq.

Which two are you talking about? And what mercenaries do you mean?

[edit on 21-10-2005 by Bikereddie]

I said "significant presence " which does not mean that the individuals are insignificant.

The Mercenaries are called 'Private Security Contractors', and there are more of them in Iraq working for American than there are British soldiers.

Originally posted by ArchAngel
I said "significant presence " which does not mean that the individuals are insignificant.

The Mercenaries are called 'Private Security Contractors', and there are more of them in Iraq working for American than there are British soldiers.

That means nothing, this is about troops.

That means nothing, this is about troops.

Actually its about the Court.

You went off topic with your poor interpretation of my words.

Originally posted by ArchAngel
Actually its about the Court.

You went off topic with your poor interpretation of my words.

You started this about troops, I only continued it. And my interpretation is not poor, you just failed to specify.
The courts not under military law.

You started this about troops, I only continued it.

I said FORCES, and as you say I started it, but you changed it.

And my interpretation is not poor, you just failed to specify.

OK, it was below poor. I said no significant presence in Iraq. How anyone could take that to mean that the individuals themselves are insignificant is beyond me.

The courts not under military law.

I never said it was. The court was created by the occupational forces, and imposed simply through the right of force.

It is not legitimate because the Iraqi people had no say in it.

Anyone who says that the Iraqis are trying Saddam, and that the court is legitimate obviously knows nothing more about it than what the TV told them.

Go read the Statute of the Iraqi Special Tribunal, and while you do imagine that Bush did not really plan on liberating Iraq when he ordered the invasion.

It is a horror we inserted within the Iraqi government.

And no, there is no precedant with which to justify this.

None of the courts created after WWII to deal with the war criminals were part of the national governments.



[edit on 22-10-2005 by ArchAngel]

Originally posted by ArchAngel
I said FORCES, and as you say I started it, but you changed it.

Troops are forces, private contractors are civilians, not forces.

OK, it was below poor. I said no significant forces in Iraq. How anyone could take that to mean that the individuals themselves are insignificant is beyond me.

Really? Thanks.

No you said it overall, not in anyway are UK troops overall a token force.

I never said it was. The court was created by the occupational forces, and imposed simply through the right of force.

That is true, but who would have created the court otherwise?

It is not legitimate because the Iraqi people had no say in it.

Are there not iraqis on the seats?

Anyone who says that the Iraqis are trying Saddam, and that the court is legitimate obviously knows nothing more about it than what the TV told them.

As I said, laws are not about justice.
Also I believe the qoute is : "I only know what I have been told"

Go read the Statute of the Iraqi Special Tribunal, and while you do imagine that Bush did not really plan on liberating Iraq when he ordered the invasion.

No I think I'll leave the legal stuff to the rat soliciters.

It is a horror we inserted within the Iraqi government.

So we shouldnt remove it?

And no, there is no precedant with which to justify this.

No? In who's opinion?

None of the courts created after WWII to deal with the war criminals were part of the national governments.

No that is true, but this isnt 1945 now is it?


Edit: I just noticed that you said "apart from" in your original post, my mistake. I believed you where caling UK forces there a "token" force. My aplogies.

[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]

I hate to say this, but think of it like this. A foreign country declares war on the United States, Our American President is captured by these foreign forces. Now the foreign country choose's United States citizens to try him for his presidential duties. (This would be treason because the president is our leader good or bad) So tell me this when can Russia or China come to the United States and let us decide who and what ethnical background is going to run our great nation.) I dare you to tell me it cant happen here because then what you will be saying would be a conflict of what is happening in Iraq with there president.

Just My thoughts.

Originally posted by Justmytype
I hate to say this, but think of it like this. A foreign country declares war on the United States, Our American President is captured by these foreign forces. Now the foreign country choose's United States citizens to try him for his presidential duties. (This would be treason because the president is our leader good or bad) So tell me this when can Russia or China come to the United States and let us decide who and what ethnical background is going to run our great nation.) I dare you to tell me it cant happen here because then what you will be saying would be a conflict of what is happening in Iraq with there president.

Just My thoughts.

All I can I say is this, did the US comit genocide on its people?
Did Bush use Gas on his own people to kill them?

Originally posted by bodrul
( what 4 years+ of being president )
it will make most yanks happy

All your base are belong to me.

Don't be insulting.

Originally posted by crisko

Originally posted by bodrul
( what 4 years+ of being president )
it will make most yanks happy

All your base are belong to me.

Don't be insulting.

crisko and rstrik see this old thread of mine: Is the term "YANKEE" (or YANK) pejorative?

It didn't get much replies but perhaps you could explain why the term is insulting there.
.

Troops are forces, private contractors are civilians, not forces.

If they have weapons they are forces of those that pay them, that being America.

The second largest Army in Iraq is the one America is paying for.

They outnumber even the Brits.

Originally posted by ArchAngel
If they have weapons they are forces of those that pay them, that being America.

No that makes them armed, forces implies they are under a supreme command, they are not.

The second largest Army in Iraq is the one America is paying for.

Yes and america is the "onyl" one paying I suspect too huh?

They outnumber even the Brits.

The point is, they are armed groups, not forces.