Light touch paper and withdraw to a safe distance? - Page 2

killerkebab · 31-12-2006, 19:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Feek

He could never get a 'fair' trial. He was too high profile.

Lets face it, the guy was guilty, does anyone seriously believe he wasn't? I think that any trial would have been called a farce, no matter how it was conducted.

It would have been called a farce, but the least which could have been done is no make it look like a farce on top of that.

mejinks · 01-01-2007, 23:22

A fair trial would have had a different outcome. One where America may have had egg on its face and looked like the world bully that it is.

We have only now seen the end of violence from the IRA and now the government has ensured continued fear through terrorism. Who are the real terrorists you have to ask?

If I ever get into a position of power, both Blair and Bush will be indicted for war crimes, genocide and abuse of human rights and thats just for starters.

I for one now want to distance myself from Bush and his cronies as well as the current pathetic labour government for ensuring I spend the rest of my life looking over my shoulder. This situation does nothing for the credibility of the West and only heightens anti Islamic and Anti West tensions still further.

Zirax · 10-01-2007, 10:57

Something that has occurred recently which is really starting to annoy me. With the spin doctors in full force they clearly heard that the public view on the execution was negative. Cue Brown condeming the execution of Saddam, now Blair jumps on the bandwagon and is condeming it.

Now where were these two nitwits before the execution occurred? They certainly were not saying anything about the execution beforehand. I distinctly remember Blair saying the trial was
"In the hands of the Iraqi people" (so you mean the Americans then).

Its all well and good condeming the execution. But when you only start complaining after the guy is dead.... you look like an idiot.

Another thing is why the hell is the trial still carrying on??? The guy is dead, you can't get more of a permenant solution then that. Normally you pass sentence on someone at the end of the trial, not kill him half way through then listen to the rest of the evidence

Mark · 10-01-2007, 11:11

It was reported that several world leaders had called for clemency before the execution, so I can't entirely rule it out. Wouldn't have been Bush, obviously, but Blair, dunno.

Anyway, I missed this first time round. My opinion is that it was a show trial put on for the media and to bolster coalition egos. In both respects it backfired.

I, like a lot of other people, supported the war originally, and I still support our troops. I still support the toppling of Saddam too, but I certainly don't support the way it was done - no preparations, no planning, no thought - let's just go in there and bash some brains and they'll kneel before us like we're some sort of deity. Yeah, right.

semi-pro waster · 11-01-2007, 16:18

This is somewhat related I suppose, Bush has said "Blame me for the mistakes in Iraq". Very big of him no doubt but I already did blame him for most of them and it seems they are going to be sending another 20,000 odd troops in soon.

My opinion on the trial is an absolute farce from start to finish, admittedly that wasn't helped by Saddam himself but with the result in no doubt right from the off they could certainly have made more of an effort with the trial to expose all the evidence and make the trial as fair as possible. A neutral location with experience in such matters would have been a good start e.g. the War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague.

Mark · 11-01-2007, 19:53

For everyone else, The Hague would have been ideal, even preferred, but the Iraqis would never have accepted an independent location, just as now they're not accepting the presence of the coalition (well, that's one way of putting it anyway). Their country, their rules, their way.

The ideal compromise might have been to have a Hague-style trial run by the Iraqis, but I just don't see that would ever have been possible - there's too much hostility, on both sides.

11-01-2007, 16:18	#15
semi-pro waster Provider of sensible advice about homosexuals Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: London Posts: 2,615	This is somewhat related I suppose, Bush has said "Blame me for the mistakes in Iraq". Very big of him no doubt but I already did blame him for most of them and it seems they are going to be sending another 20,000 odd troops in soon. My opinion on the trial is an absolute farce from start to finish, admittedly that wasn't helped by Saddam himself but with the result in no doubt right from the off they could certainly have made more of an effort with the trial to expose all the evidence and make the trial as fair as possible. A neutral location with experience in such matters would have been a good start e.g. the War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague. __________________ "Your friend is the man that knows all about you, and still likes you." - Elbert Hubbard

10-01-2007, 10:57	#13
Zirax Goes up to 11! Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 4,577	Something that has occurred recently which is really starting to annoy me. With the spin doctors in full force they clearly heard that the public view on the execution was negative. Cue Brown condeming the execution of Saddam, now Blair jumps on the bandwagon and is condeming it. Now where were these two nitwits before the execution occurred? They certainly were not saying anything about the execution beforehand. I distinctly remember Blair saying the trial was "In the hands of the Iraqi people" (so you mean the Americans then). Its all well and good condeming the execution. But when you only start complaining after the guy is dead.... you look like an idiot. Another thing is why the hell is the trial still carrying on??? The guy is dead, you can't get more of a permenant solution then that. Normally you pass sentence on someone at the end of the trial, not kill him half way through then listen to the rest of the evidence

10-01-2007, 11:11	#14
Mark Screaming Orgasm Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Newbury Posts: 15,194	It was reported that several world leaders had called for clemency before the execution, so I can't entirely rule it out. Wouldn't have been Bush, obviously, but Blair, dunno. Anyway, I missed this first time round. My opinion is that it was a show trial put on for the media and to bolster coalition egos. In both respects it backfired. I, like a lot of other people, supported the war originally, and I still support our troops. I still support the toppling of Saddam too, but I certainly don't support the way it was done - no preparations, no planning, no thought - let's just go in there and bash some brains and they'll kneel before us like we're some sort of deity. Yeah, right.

11-01-2007, 19:53	#16
Mark Screaming Orgasm Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Newbury Posts: 15,194	For everyone else, The Hague would have been ideal, even preferred, but the Iraqis would never have accepted an independent location, just as now they're not accepting the presence of the coalition (well, that's one way of putting it anyway). Their country, their rules, their way. The ideal compromise might have been to have a Hague-style trial run by the Iraqis, but I just don't see that would ever have been possible - there's too much hostility, on both sides.