Visit the Active Site for the U.S. Politics Online Discussion Forums!
 |
02-17-2006, 03:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Ramsey Clark
Ramsey Clark exemplifies the reason that so many people LEGITIMATELY question the patriotism of the far-left.
|
|
03-23-2006, 08:19 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Ramsey Clark
Quote:
The reason he is defending Saddam is becouse Saddam has alot of secrets related to his cullusion with the United States. If the trial was fair members of the Bush/Raegan administration's could been convicted of being Saddam's accomplises
__________________
[SIZE=3][B]Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival. In the Middle East and Southwest Asia, our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region’s oil. U.S. National Security Strategy 1992-2006[/B][/SIZE] |
|
03-23-2006, 09:19 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Ramsey Clark
Quote:
For the Party of Individual Accountablity, Republicans sure do love to blame everyone else for everything. Now it's Ramsey Clarks fault for........for what? Being a lawyer? *~*~*~* Horhey - if they wanted to really put Saddam on trial they would bring charges for the thousands of Kurds that he killed. But since he use the chemical weapons he got from us,  we can't very well put that in the trial, can we? So he is only charged with killing a few people before that time. |
|
03-24-2006, 04:36 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Ramsey Clark
The reason he is defending Saddam is becouse Saddam has alot of secrets related to his cullusion with the United States. If the trial was fair members of the Bush/Raegan administration's could been convicted of being Saddam's accomplises
Actually, the entire world would be, because everybody, and I mean everybody, backed Iraq over Iran in that war. Except maybe Syria and a few tiny countries that didn't care one way or the other. If you convict Reagan/Bush, you have to convict the entire Western world, the entire Arab world, China, and Russia. |
|
03-24-2006, 04:39 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Ramsey Clark
Horhey - if they wanted to really put Saddam on trial they would bring charges for the thousands of Kurds that he killed. But since he use the chemical weapons he got from us,
First, there is no evidence that any of the industrial chemicals he got from us where ever weaponized. We did not sell him crucial materials needed to make chemical weapons. That would be some European companies and most importantly, the Soviet Union. Second, the only reason he isn't being charged with the deaths of the Kurds at Halabja is because the evidence wouldn't meet the rigors of proof in a court of law. They aren't even 100% sure that Iran didn't do it, and even if they could prove it was Iraq, they have to prove Saddam gave the orders. The reason the particular case they have was chosen was because Saddam actually gave the orders and was present during the killings in that Shiite village. |
|
03-24-2006, 03:51 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Ramsey Clark
Quote:
Actually that is a lie that became a universal truth. What actually happenned was the Kurds were caught in a crossfire between Iraqi and Iranian soldiers during the war. The chemicals that killed the Kurds were Iranian chemical weapons. The CIA investigated this a long time ago. Somehow when Saddam became our enemy the story changed to the lie we constantly hear today. From what I have read so far, Saddam will not be convicted of this at his trial.
__________________
[SIZE=3][B]Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival. In the Middle East and Southwest Asia, our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region’s oil. U.S. National Security Strategy 1992-2006[/B][/SIZE] |
|
03-24-2006, 10:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Ramsey Clark
The preponderance of evidence indicates that those were Iraqi chemical weapons. But yes, the standard of proof is just not high enough for Saddam to be convicted in a trial over it.
|
|
03-24-2006, 10:52 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Re: Ramsey Clark
So you are saying that Saddam didn't really kill the Kurds? All those people who are arguing that Saddam deserved to be toppled because he gassed the Kurds are wrong? All those people who say Saddam killed thousands and thousands of Iraqis, way more than we killed, are wrong????
|
|
03-25-2006, 12:32 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Ramsey Clark
Saddam did kill a whole bunch of Kurds in the 1988 Anfal campaign.
But it's not as open and shut because he wasn't there and there may not have been any documents with his signature on them ordering the campaign. Why take on less sure cases when you have an atrocity that he was actually present for? Now Chemical Ali, they'll nail him for the Kurds for sure, because he was the primary guy in charge on the ground at the time. They can also get Chemical Ali for the way he governed Kuwait during the Iraqi occupation. Something like 5000 Kuwaitis disappeared during just a six month period. |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
