[gratelady1]

I often wondered why the Bush Administration did not bring the infamous Saddam Hussein here for trial, well there are some obvious reasons which need no emperical evidence to support them,

a) The man never really did anything to us- directly, so what would be the charge? Intention to do the U.S. harm, some time in the future-(all the Repubs would be lynched if that was a convictable offence)?

b) It turns out the Bush admin wants to keep the trial under wraps due to the fact that Saddam could reveal some damaging evidence against it, and thus why it has taken so long to commence.

I have always felt that the Bush admin, was remiss in it's affairs with Iraq, and the Pappa Bush had more rationale to invade Iraq than jr., but that is history. Now if only Bin Laden would see the brillance in surrendering and challenging the political charges against him. You see, it would have done the Bush admin a lot more harm/ cripple its intentions, if he would have surrendered to a neutral country and stood trial for what?- supporting an "Ideal", we pride ourselves in our freedom of expression- and post 9-11, all terrorist should have humiliated Bush's attempt to criminalize expression.

Dont get me wrong, I dont believe Bin Laden is innocent of the 9-11 incident, but then again, I would like a trial to prove it. The worst thing that could have happen for Bush, would have been if Bin Laden challenged the charges against him, and instead stop the years of cat and mouse chasing which instead gave Bush ammo to reinforce the fact of Bin Laden's gulit.

If Saddam had the sense God gave a tomato, he would have surrendered before the invasion, to a neutral country and would have been found innocent of all charges and it would have imbarrassed the Bush admin before the fact. Instead we can only infer that Saddam is uniquely stupid, had poor counsel, or was consistently lied to by the Bush admin, that all the prior would not happen, but then guess what- the Saudis would get their way!

[-V-]

If Saddam had the sense God gave a tomato, he would have surrendered before the invasion, to a neutral country

I don't recall the source, but I heard that Saddam did make an offer of surrender (leaving the country) just before the invasion. I'd like more info on that.

Regarding a trial. That should be a U.N. matter for all Kings, dictators, and Presidents including ours, but the U.S. rejected giving that kind of power to the U.N.. When you're the #1 superpower you don't want the rest of the world passing judgement on you.

Both Saddam and Bush would be found guilty of war crimes.

[gratelady1]

You got that right!!

[gratelady1]

Man they sure are stretching out that lynching arent they?

[gratelady1]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10318347/

OK- so what if your witness is behind a curtain and doesnt want to be seen, that dont mean she is a Bush "plant" or a hired professional witness!

What I want to know, is why cant we bring Saddam Here and let the common, ordinary American, have at the slime- where are our American values/ testicales?

The entire case/ trial is a farse, and the Conservative right and Liberal left should be demanding Bush's Head instead- this is all bull!!!

[sweetpea]

Question: What is prioritized first in your mind and in your heart.....hating GWB or the sovreignty of your country?

[gratelady1]

Question: What is prioritized first in your mind and in your heart.....hating GWB or the sovreignty of your country?

I love peas, after they are de-shelled, they are sweet and soft, and GREEN.

Anyway- is this question for anyone? or everyone?

I would love to answer a specific question, but like a good chess player, when your move is intended to get one of your opponents men, reguardless of his next move, you have set this up wonderfully.

Which is prioritized first in my heart and mind- I would say neither, first and foremost in my mind is my family, then my home, then my town, then my state, then county, then region, then country, then continent, then hemisphere, then the world. Thus- as a true conservative, I wish a smaller decentralize government-proportedly what Bush originally wanted- but he is so Liberal- what did you end up with?

But since we cannot be accepted by 3 billion other folks in the world, everything before it is mute!

So lets say I prioritize the opposite way and was somehow able to affect my world, and thus my country could be guaranteed peace, then maybe my state would be- down to my home and my family.

But lets get real, you dont care how I prioritize my world- anymore than I care how you prioritize yours, you just dont like folks to defame your President, cause his priorities are more inline with yours and somehow you have this imaginary belief that if everything comes to pass as he wishes, you will be happy- right?

GWB prioritizes that first you should live in fear, then in war, then in complete servitude, then if you are with him- in peace- because everyone that is not with him- will be dead- thus peace by atrition. How nice, only if the ones which are not with him would only lay down and die and not force in to practice his secret global genecide! :rolleyes:

[sweetpea]

I've got no reason not to "get real" as you put it. But, after wading through your post I still can't tell whetehr you love your country before hating GWB.

Remember, GWB will be long gone and you will have to decide again whether you hate some temporary politician over and above loving your country.

All this nonsense about where the Saddam trial is or isn't is just that. Nonsense adn hyperbole. The fact is that he is on trail. I'd bet you a dozen donuts you would piss and moan if he were on trial in the US because GWB happened to be in office when he was put on trial.

There are a lot of things to complain about and a lot of conspiracies to dream up, but trying to advance the notion that there is some cover up because Saddam is not on trial in the US is pure lunacy. It demonstrates quite well where your priorities lie. Further, it misses the overarching point that Saddam, in fact, is on trial.

Do you find it a positive or a negative that Saddam is on trial? Do you find it a poistive or a negative that his sons were killed by our troops?

[gratelady1]

I've got no reason not to "get real" as you put it. But, after wading through your post I still can't tell whetehr you love your country before hating GWB.

Remember, GWB will be long gone and you will have to decide again whether you hate some temporary politician over and above loving your country.

All this nonsense about where the Saddam trial is or isn't is just that. Nonsense adn hyperbole. The fact is that he is on trail. I'd bet you a dozen donuts you would piss and moan if he were on trial in the US because GWB happened to be in office when he was put on trial.

There are a lot of things to complain about and a lot of conspiracies to dream up, but trying to advance the notion that there is some cover up because Saddam is not on trial in the US is pure lunacy. It demonstrates quite well where your priorities lie. Further, it misses the overarching point that Saddam, in fact, is on trial.

Do you find it a positive or a negative that Saddam is on trial? Do you find it a poistive or a negative that his sons were killed by our troops?

Your re-inforcing my point and dont even know it- Saddam and his trial, are about as important and relevant as George W. Bush- Not at all!

If I did not love my country- would I be here fighting rhetorically with you- about how it's conscience if supposed to be focused?

Think how many Americans out there right now are so apathetic, they- like you, follow the propoganda of their president without question, and dont care enough about thier country and it's troops- to provide for a leader- with at least a moral conscience!

I ask you to provide a single proof of your conscience- how many innocent Iraqis- or for that matter Arabs, Islamics/ muslims, have your troops killed for Bush's proposed fight for "Freedom"- Total number please?! I dont even care what source you use- just a number... Would you even admit our troops are killing innocent people? WOULD YOU EVEN CARE?

[sweetpea]

Your re-inforcing my point and dont even know it- Saddam and his trial, are about as important and relevant as George W. Bush- Not at all!

If I did not love my country- would I be here fighting rhetorically with you- about how it's conscience if supposed to be focused?

Think how many Americans out there right now are so apathetic, they- like you, follow the propoganda of their president without question, and dont care enough about thier country and it's troops- to provide for a leader- with at least a moral conscience!

I ask you to provide a single proof of your conscience- how many innocent Iraqis- or for that matter Arabs, Islamics/ muslims, have your troops killed for Bush's proposed fight for "Freedom"- Total number please?! I dont even care what source you use- just a number... Would you even admit our troops are killing innocent people? WOULD YOU EVEN CARE?

Your "point" was that GWB was conspiring to hide the Saddam trial becuase....well, I really couldn't figure out why....except to say you hate GWB.

So, you love your country enough to dream up some conspiracy about the trial of Saddam and then to state that "how many innocent Iraqis- or for that matter Arabs, Islamics/ muslims, have your troops killed for Bush's proposed fight for "Freedom"- Total number please?! " If that's love........who needs hate? By the way they are your troops, too.

To answer your question (even though you can't seem to answer mine). Of course I care. But, my first inclination is not to think of our troops as terrorrists adn killers of innocents just because of the party of the Presidint in office. Did you care that innocnets died in Bosnia, Haiti, Somalia, the twin towers (twice), The USS Cole,?

[gratelady1]

Your "point" was that GWB was conspiring to hide the Saddam trial becuase....well, I really couldn't figure out why....except to say you hate GWB.

So, you love your country enough to dream up some conspiracy about the trial of Saddam and then to state that "how many innocent Iraqis- or for that matter Arabs, Islamics/ muslims, have your troops killed for Bush's proposed fight for "Freedom"- Total number please?! " If that's love........who needs hate? By the way they are your troops, too.

To answer your question (even though you can't seem to answer mine). Of course I care. But, my first inclination is not to think of our troops as terrorrists adn killers of innocents just because of the party of the Presidint in office. Did you care that innocnets died in Bosnia, Haiti, Somalia, the twin towers (twice), The USS Cole,?

If this is your response, then I can assume you wont admit your troops are killing innocent people, and that you dont know the number already killed and you prefer to live in denial, and support the killing of innocents- as long as someone can come with a good enough rationale for doing so (defused responsibility). This is not showing love for your country, this is showing love for tyranical mania, (GWB has already showed he is suffering from paranoid delusional schitzophrenia) simular to what your idicting Saddam for, so how should we indict you and your troops?

And for your information, I dont give a damn about anyone outside my realm of existence, which I already admitted to you is very limited to my local area.

So Bosnia, Haiti, Somalia, and the twin towers can go to hell for all I care, and some have already gone there, thanks to the status quo- thank you very much, now I ask you- how are you going to sell me on an idea- to get involved in action in another country, which has never posed a threat to my country?

[sweetpea]

Try to focus. You asked a direct question and I answered. How about extending the same courtesy?

I love how you contradict yourself. You state "I dont give a damn about anyone outside my realm of existence" and yet are sooooooo concerned about folks in Iraq.

I enjoy debating folks on issues. But, you like to debate yourself and whatever convenient strawman you can use.

[gratelady1]

Try to focus. You asked a direct question and I answered. How about extending the same courtesy?

I love how you contradict yourself. You state "I dont give a damn about anyone outside my realm of existence" and yet are sooooooo concerned about folks in Iraq.

I enjoy debating folks on issues. But, you like to debate yourself and whatever convenient strawman you can use.

Please dont flatter yourself- I would hardly call your banter- debate, you are completley laughable...

I can focus on one thing that is apparent- all you bring to the perverbial table is criticism about criticism.... If all you got is "that I never answer any questions"- you are either incapable of reading or just digging for negatives that support what?- If I cant answer a question- what does that mean?

This is the second thread where you have claimed I did not answer a question, and this is the second time- that there is palpable proof you are a miserable liar, or just a pathetic hack, which really is probably the case.

"Which is prioritized first in my heart and mind- I would say neither, first and foremost in my mind is my family, then my home, then my town, then my state, then county, then region, then country, then continent, then hemisphere, then the world. Thus- as a true conservative, I wish a smaller decentralize government-proportedly what Bush originally wanted- but he is so Liberal- what did you end up with?"

Was this posted by me or not?

In reality your defensive ploy to accuse someone of not answering questions, is in truth just a cheap ill-fated attempt- to divert from the fact that you wont be able to answer a question yourself- I asked you directly for a simple number- where is it?

"I ask you to provide a single proof of your conscience- how many innocent Iraqis- or for that matter Arabs, Islamics/ muslims, have your troops killed for Bush's proposed fight for "Freedom"- Total number please?! I dont even care what source you use- just a number... Would you even admit our troops are killing innocent people? WOULD YOU EVEN CARE?"

Now that you have been embarrassed so completely, will you please go back to the Hannity Blog and put your nose back where it belongs!

[sweetpea]

Please dont flatter yourself- I would hardly call your banter- debate, you are completley laughable...

I can focus on one thing that is apparent- all you bring to the perverbial table is criticism about criticism.... If all you got is "that I never answer any questions"- you are either incapable of reading or just digging for negatives that support what?- If I cant answer a question- what does that mean?
--It means you can't or won't answer a simple question. Normally, during a debate one has the courtesy to answer an honest question, especially when the other party has done the same.

This is the second thread where you have claimed I did not answer a question, and this is the second time- that there is palpable proof you are a miserable liar, or just a pathetic hack, which really is probably the case.
--"Do you find it a positive or a negative that Saddam is on trial? Do you find it a poistive or a negative that his sons were killed by our troops?" -- Asked, and not answered.

"Which is prioritized first in my heart and mind- I would say neither, first and foremost in my mind is my family, then my home, then my town, then my state, then county, then region, then country, then continent, then hemisphere, then the world. Thus- as a true conservative, I wish a smaller decentralize government-proportedly what Bush originally wanted- but he is so Liberal- what did you end up with?"

Was this posted by me or not?
--- I read it. But, the question was: "What is prioritized first in your mind and in your heart.....hating GWB or the sovreignty of your country?"
I am sensing it is hating GWB....just trying to understand and make sure.
Ayou also prefaced upur anser with some nonsense: "I would love to answer a specific question, but like a good chess player, when your move is intended to get one of your opponents men, reguardless of his next move, you have set this up wonderfully."
-Translation = I'm not going to answer, bit just going to tell you hopw much I hate GWB.


In reality your defensive ploy to accuse someone of not answering questions, is in truth just a cheap ill-fated attempt- to divert from the fact that you wont be able to answer a question yourself- I asked you directly for a simple number- where is it?

"I ask you to provide a single proof of your conscience- how many innocent Iraqis- or for that matter Arabs, Islamics/ muslims, have your troops killed for Bush's proposed fight for "Freedom"- Total number please?! I dont even care what source you use- just a number... Would you even admit our troops are killing innocent people? WOULD YOU EVEN CARE?"
--Here is the quote as a reminder followed by my answer. GRATELADY asks: "I ask you to provide a single proof of your conscience- how many innocent Iraqis- or for that matter Arabs, Islamics/ muslims, have your troops killed for Bush's proposed fight for "Freedom"- Total number please?! I dont even care what source you use- just a number... Would you even admit our troops are killing innocent people? WOULD YOU EVEN CARE?
Answer - Sweetpea responds: "To answer your question (even though you can't seem to answer mine). Of course I care. But, my first inclination is not to think of our troops as terrorrists adn killers of innocents just because of the party of the Presidint in office. Did you care that innocnets died in Bosnia, Haiti, Somalia, the twin towers (twice), The USS Cole,?"

Now that you have been embarrassed so completely, will you please go back to the Hannity Blog and put your nose back where it belongs!
--I'll give you every opportunity to embarass me. Here is the challenge: I'll let you pick a topic and we can debate assuming we don't agree. Get someone on this forum to moderate and we'll debate your topic with some ground rules.
When we are done you can decide if you have enough debating skills to go to a conservative discussion thread and do the same.

I'll be waiting.

[gratelady1]

Sweet peas, play with this instead;

http://www.oddcast.com/vhost/bush/host.php?id=1

:eek:

[sweetpea]

That is your response? Are you kidding me?

Step up to the plate and take the challenge. Put your mind where your mouth is.

[gratelady1]

Ok sweetpea, I accept your challenge- state your ground rules, and then I will state mine.

But may I instead suggest we take this to the proper thread for this? Like the-
Pre-Iraq war intel-Bush admits mistakes!

[sweetpea]

Rules are:
1. Cut the personal insults.
2. Focus. Stay on subject. If the subject is the efficacy of aspirin then talking about how you hate Cauliflower is useless.
3. Links to newsmax, buzz flash, et. al. are not to be used. This includes blogs.
4. Links to editorials or opinion pieces are not to be used to prove a position...only to state a point.
5. If you state number, poll, or use phrases such as "all", "every", "none", "never", etc. you have to have evidence. Remember rule #'3 and 4.
6. Ad Hominem attacks are not allowed.
7. No strawmen. Debate what the other said, not what you think they believe.
8. We need a referee.

[gratelady1]

Rules are:
1. Cut the personal insults.
2. Focus. Stay on subject. If the subject is the efficacy of aspirin then talking about how you hate Cauliflower is useless.
3. Links to newsmax, buzz flash, et. al. are not to be used. This includes blogs.
4. Links to editorials or opinion pieces are not to be used to prove a position...only to state a point.
5. If you state number, poll, or use phrases such as "all", "every", "none", "never", etc. you have to have evidence. Remember rule #'3 and 4.
6. Ad Hominem attacks are not allowed.
7. No strawmen. Debate what the other said, not what you think they believe.
8. We need a referee.

Ok I accept your premised rules- here is what I want to add to them;

If asked a direct question, instead of argueing your opinion- first answer the question- for example; Is GWB President of the U.S.?
dont read anything into the question just answer- Yes or no, then on a separate next line, you can make any justifications about his limited control or whatever. Any response or follow up must be addressed, before that topic is veered from, or as you say "go off topic". This is considered being polite, and helps finalize issues.

Once you have answered "yes" or "no" the accepted form is to accept that the answer is yours, and only yours and any contradiction, must be addressed before we can go on, you understand that many issues have contradictions- but if the conclusion of the deabte (on this one issue) should not be "We agree to disagree"- this very poor simple logic, and does not help with progression, and is considered a "COP-OUT", and in fact your just protecting your pre-misconceptions about the issue.
For example; I say the freezing point of water is 32 degrees F, you argue successfully that science proves it is at 32.3F, I check your references and have to agree- despite my simplified pre-misconcepted education that had proved to me years ago- that in fact the prior was true. We have to agree by convention that a cop-out like "we agree to disagree"- did not finalize the issue- it only allowed someone to save face- and that is worthless in emperical science.

When we begin an issue, the other has veto power over that issue- he just does not want to go there, and may actually fear ineptness to prove his point. Though it proves nothing about the person's abilities, it does leave the other the pre-conventionalized agruement that- that issue is not winnable. Accept it going in!
This is not an insult! If you say you dont know the freezing point of water, and I say you are ignorant- you have proved my point, and can not argue successfully against it- it is not an insult- it is a fact, and any debator should be mature enough to accept his ineptness, and apologize for it, not get mad and accuse the other of rudeness or of insulting him. This is just another cop-out and is used by simpletons to go "off topic". The same- if you tell me I am wrong and prove it, I must apologize for my incorrectness and accept I am wrong, and move on, not take it personally, because you "got me".

I cant suggest a ref, maybe someone would want to take the position- Good Luck!

Any additional rules must be oked by both debators and the "Ref", before we can add one.

And what about taking this to an appropriate thread- or a new one, or the chat room?

[sweetpea]

Rules are:
1. Cut the personal insults.
2. Focus. Stay on subject. If the subject is the efficacy of aspirin then talking about how you hate Cauliflower is useless.
3. Links to newsmax, buzz flash, et. al. are not to be used. This includes blogs.
4. Links to editorials or opinion pieces are not to be used to prove a position...only to state a point.
5. If you state number, poll, or use phrases such as "all", "every", "none", "never", etc. you have to have evidence. Remember rule #'3 and 4.
6. Ad Hominem attacks are not allowed.
7. No strawmen. Debate what the other said, not what you think they believe.
8. Direct questions have to be anserwed. Posing another question is not an answer. however, after answering the other party may ask a question and expect the same coutesy.
9. The topic has to be accepted by both parties before debating.
10. Third party interruptions are just that. Interruptions, and they carry no weight in the debate.
10. We need a referee.

Moving to another thread makes sense to me. IF you want to post the topic of your choice and your position on this thread I will accept and counter, or agree with you, or decline. WE can wait on a referee.

[gratelady1]

I often wondered why the Bush Administration did not bring the infamous Saddam Hussein here for trial, well there are some obvious reasons which need no emperical evidence to support them,

a) The man never really did anything to us- directly, so what would be the charge? Intention to do the U.S. harm, some time in the future-(all the Repubs would be lynched if that was a convictable offence)?

b) It turns out the Bush admin wants to keep the trial under wraps due to the fact that Saddam could reveal some damaging evidence against it, and thus why it has taken so long to commence.

I have always felt that the Bush admin, was remiss in it's affairs with Iraq, and the Pappa Bush had more rationale to invade Iraq than jr., but that is history. Now if only Bin Laden would see the brillance in surrendering and challenging the political charges against him. You see, it would have done the Bush admin a lot more harm/ cripple its intentions, if he would have surrendered to a neutral country and stood trial for what?- supporting an "Ideal", we pride ourselves in our freedom of expression- and post 9-11, all terrorist should have humiliated Bush's attempt to criminalize expression.

Dont get me wrong, I dont believe Bin Laden is innocent of the 9-11 incident, but then again, I would like a trial to prove it. The worst thing that could have happen for Bush, would have been if Bin Laden challenged the charges against him, and instead stop the years of cat and mouse chasing which instead gave Bush ammo to reinforce the fact of Bin Laden's gulit.

If Saddam had the sense God gave a tomato, he would have surrendered before the invasion, to a neutral country and would have been found innocent of all charges and it would have imbarrassed the Bush admin before the fact. Instead we can only infer that Saddam is uniquely stupid, had poor counsel, or was consistently lied to by the Bush admin, that all the prior would not happen, but then guess what- the Saudis would get their way!

OK LET THE GAMES BEGIN!

To clear up issues of this thread;

This original post was posted back in June of this year, I made some outlandish claims, my question to you is quite simple-

Why has noone else- Repub or Dem, or you- made such claims, or countered it affectively?

If I must, let me surmise my premise- If you love your country, if you love your countries' sovreingty (and thus want other countries to respect that sovreingty), if you feel that the rationale for taking out Saddam was somehow justified, then we should demand or at least expect, that we get something for the price we have paid in Iraq- in resources and lives. So why would the trial not be carried live, and in a neutrally translated format? And since we control the court there, why not just control it here? Remember there is no formal government in Iraq- yet, they have just voted for one, so how can GWB or any person claim "a formal Iraqi government is procecuting Saddam?" You cant just label a government "Interim" and claim it is formal. And since there is no formal governing parliment yet, and thus no formal way of electing and selecting or appointing judges, then how can GWB and his propogandist, claim the Iraqis are prosecuting Saddam? Saddam claims the trial is a farce, everyone should want a true- emperically supportable trial, that noone in the world can challenge- so what's the problem here? Why dont we want a true trial? Why is noone demanding it?

I post some simple reference as to what is available now;
http://www.courttv.com/talk/chat_transcripts/2005/1019hussein-graham.html

It is disturbing what is said and what is not said.

[sweetpea]

Is THIS your debate topic?

[gratelady1]

Is THIS your debate topic?

More like a test/ trial basis, practice, lets get good at this topic;

If we can come to some convention on this thread, maybe we can go to others.

[sweetpea]

OK LET THE GAMES BEGIN!

To clear up issues of this thread;

This original post was posted back in June of this year, I made some outlandish claims, my question to you is quite simple-

Why has noone else- Repub or Dem, or you- made such claims, or countered it affectively?

Because, as you state, they are outalndish. Why bother? You espouse that GWB is keeping Saddam's trial in Iraq for conspiritorial reasons. The fact that he is even on trial in the country that he commited the crimes in seems to be lost on you.
In short, countering an outlandish claim is, often times, not worth the effort.

[gratelady1]

Because, as you state, they are outalndish. Why bother? You espouse that GWB is keeping Saddam's trial in Iraq for conspiritorial reasons. The fact that he is even on trial in the country that he commited the crimes in seems to be lost on you.
In short, countering an outlandish claim is, often times, not worth the effort.

Again, this is not debate- but instead criticism of debate- If you dont have an answer, that is fine, but the fact that Americans went in and brought Saddam to trial- is a fact and thus Americans should have the say- as to how, where, and why Saddam should be on trial. This is not the case, and I need to know if you have an answer for that- Or would you argue that we should disrespect the lives lost in the cause of bringing Saddam to trial?

I dont think your cabable of seeing the contradiction here, instead of harping on me and what I say, just answer the question first- with fact, not your personal opinion, this would be far and away a better way to debate issues- would you not agree?

On the other hand if you just dont want to go there, just use your veto (Easy Button) option, as you know there is no rational answer to this question.

[sweetpea]

I answered your question. You may not like it, but it is still my answer. I'll post it again ........ maybe you just missed it.
QUESTION: "Why has noone else- Repub or Dem, or you- made such claims, or countered it affectively?"
ANSWER: "Because, as you state, they are outalndish..........................In short, countering an outlandish claim is, often times, not worth the effort."


Ignoring your condescension where you say I don't comprehend I'll even answer your second question.
QUESTION: "......the fact that Americans went in and brought Saddam to trial- is a fact and thus Americans should have the say- as to how, where, and why Saddam should be on trial. This is not the case, and I need to know if you have an answer for that- Or would you argue that we should disrespect the lives lost in the cause of bringing Saddam to trial?"
ANSWER: --I would argue that the US respects the hundreds of thousands of lives that were taken by Saddam enough to have him stand trial in the country that he committed the crimes.

I am still waiting on your debate topic.

Try to remember rules 1,6 and 7. Personal insults, Ad hominem and strawmen.

[gratelady1]

I answered your question. You may not like it, but it is still my answer. I'll post it again ........ maybe you just missed it.
QUESTION: "Why has noone else- Repub or Dem, or you- made such claims, or countered it affectively?"
ANSWER: "Because, as you state, they are outalndish..........................In short, countering an outlandish claim is, often times, not worth the effort."


Ignoring your condescension where you say I don't comprehend I'll even answer your second question.
QUESTION: "......the fact that Americans went in and brought Saddam to trial- is a fact and thus Americans should have the say- as to how, where, and why Saddam should be on trial. This is not the case, and I need to know if you have an answer for that- Or would you argue that we should disrespect the lives lost in the cause of bringing Saddam to trial?"
ANSWER: --I would argue that the US respects the hundreds of thousands of lives that were taken by Saddam enough to have him stand trial in the country that he committed the crimes.

I am still waiting on your debate topic.

Try to remember rules 1,6 and 7. Personal insults, Ad hominem and strawmen.

So if this is your answer, you then must admit you believe the lives of Iraqis are more important than lives of American Soldiers. yes or no?

[sweetpea]

So if this is your answer, you then must admit you believe the lives of Iraqis are more important than lives of American Soldiers. yes or no?

No. Assuming the place of the trial is related to the importance of humans' lives is shallow.

We gonna continue this back and forth where you try to put me in a corner with questions? What about the debate topic?

You going to remember the courtesy of my answers if/when the debate begins?

[gratelady1]

No. Assuming the place of the trial is related to the importance of humans' lives is shallow.

We gonna continue this back and forth where you try to put me in a corner with questions? What about the debate topic?

You going to remember the courtesy of my answers if/when the debate begins?

You constantly complaining about "me attacking you or backing you into a corner" and silly little girly-men tricks like that, are not debate- if you cant debate just say so!

You said above, that the lives of Iraqis are not more important than U.S. soldiers, with your "No". I cant help your stance on issues, but making you admit them is not attacking you, its just getting everyone to understand your opinion on such things.

By saying "No"- This means you agree with me- that we have no ratonale to still be in Iraq, despite everything that has happened since the start of our invasion and occupation of that country.

You admit that we brought Saddam to trial, yet you suggest there is no legitimate reason why we should care where the trial is held, and that I am thinking "shallow". What does this have to do with the discussion? Shallow-deep?

You again, diverted from the original question and this led to my follow up question of your criticism of my question- again this is very poor debate stlye, and you dont want to face any reality.
All you had do to was explain (as scientifically as possible) why I am the only person in America- who feels we should have Saddam's butt here- where I can Kick it! Making claims about the my outlandish remarks, is hardly explanatory and again just criticizes me and does not answer the question- only diverts from the issue.

You and MAGI suggested to Roanna (on its' thread) to put me on it's ignore list, you both are living in an idealistic world- not capable of seeing the truth for anything- you would rather (on a public forum like this) promote that everyone "IGNORE" fact and issues- that should be debated and instead just prove that folks like you just patrol boards like these, and try to influence the rhetoric and discourse, to a more conservative- Pro-Bush- status-quo dialogue- GOOD-LUCK!!

As far as a debate topic- this thread is a topic- and you can pose any question or remark related to the premise of this thread- here and now, or you can continue to be a coward and whine about "how I am attacking you everytime you get backed into a corner" or cant come up with a good emperically sound answer to a simple question! I told you to stop that crap and be a Great American and debate whole-heartedly and with vigor, or go suck "Ws" toes or something.

Dont you realize when you post something here, it is pretty permanant, and can be referred to as needed? Whining and complaining about personal attacks on an anominous forum, is as stupid as Rush Limbaugh saying "he showed everyone back in 2001 that Saddam had connections to Al Queda"- ON A Radio program!

He cant show or prove anything over the radio waves! Nothing he says can be proven, anymore than GWB can prove Saddam "was someday going to come and attack us".

My premise is this- He turned Saddam over to a "Interim Court", because he knew Saddam had not done anything to us, and this is a problem for Bush- because the rationale to go to war with him, was Saddam's proposed "Immediate Danger to us"-or some other thing like that. Pretty shallow, thin stuff, if you ask me- but if you asked the friends and family of all the soldiers to date, who have died, "why we went to war there?"- To bring Saddam to trial for crimes against his people- would not be on the rationale list. It was WMDS, It was threat to the U.S., it was non- complinace with resolutions. All the excuses GWB gave for going to war are blowing up in his face and now in yours, which is worse- because you dont want to seem wrong about anything- especially supporting an incompetent! This is silly and I am not attacking you- I NEED TO YOU REALIZE THAT GWB IS A SINGLE IRREVELANT MAN- THE REPUBS, NEO-CONS, CONSERVATIVES DONT NEED HIM- HE IS NOT GOD!! You can act like there are 289 million other Americans, that can be President of the U.S., and he is expendible, and you can put another repub in his place overnight, versus spending so much effort defending him and protecting him all over this board!

[sweetpea]

You constantly complaining about "me attacking you or backing you into a corner" and silly little girly-men tricks like that, are not debate- if you cant debate just say so!
---Get it right. I said it once. Take it easy on the exaggerations; it makes you much less credible if you have to resort to gross exagerations to try and prove a point. I also had the courtesy to answer your questions. You, however, have yet to extend the same.

You said above, that the lives of Iraqis are not more important than U.S. soldiers, with your "No". I cant help your stance on issues, but making you admit them is not attacking you, its just getting everyone to understand your opinion on such things.
--Again, you can't get it right. Here is what I said since you can't seem to comprehend it the first time....try again. "ANSWER: --I would argue that the US respects the hundreds of thousands of lives that were taken by Saddam enough to have him stand trial in the country that he committed the crimes.
I also said in a subsequent post "No. Assuming the place of the trial is related to the importance of humans' lives is shallow."
My answers stand. You may not like them....they probably don't fit your narrow agenda, but they are honest forthright answers. A lot less than can be said for you.

By saying "No"- This means you agree with me- that we have no ratonale to still be in Iraq, despite everything that has happened since the start of our invasion and occupation of that country.
By saying no it answers the question. Reread the part above about being shallow.

You admit that we brought Saddam to trial, yet you suggest there is no legitimate reason why we should care where the trial is held, and that I am thinking "shallow". What does this have to do with the discussion? Shallow-deep?
----Huh?. We brought Saddam to trial and I stated pretty clearly the reason why the trial is where it is. Try rereading the answers reposted above.

You again, diverted from the original question and this led to my follow up question of your criticism of my question- again this is very poor debate stlye, and you dont want to face any reality.
--You answered your own question. Why should I explain your rationales. That is absurd. You explain them.

All you had do to was explain (as scientifically as possible) why I am the only person in America- who feels we should have Saddam's butt here- where I can Kick it! Making claims about the my outlandish remarks, is hardly explanatory and again just criticizes me and does not answer the question- only diverts from the issue.
---Again. It is your rationale....not mine. You explain it.

[sweetpea]

You and MAGI suggested to Roanna (on its' thread) to put me on it's ignore list,
---Wrong again. MAGI may have. I didn't.
you both are living in an idealistic world- not capable of seeing the truth for anything- you would rather (on a public forum like this) promote that everyone "IGNORE" fact and issues- that should be debated and instead just prove that folks like you just patrol boards like these, and try to influence the rhetoric and discourse, to a more conservative- Pro-Bush- status-quo dialogue- GOOD-LUCK!!
---Find the post where I said IGNORE. You can't. Further, I have stated on this thread I will debate you on your chosen topic and we even agreed to some rules, which you can't seem to abide by.

As far as a debate topic- this thread is a topic- and you can pose any question or remark related to the premise of this thread- here and now, or you can continue to be a coward and whine about "how I am attacking you everytime you get backed into a corner" or cant come up with a good emperically sound answer to a simple question! I told you to stop that crap and be a Great American and debate whole-heartedly and with vigor, or go suck "Ws" toes or something.
---Please find where I whined.......Crickets are chirping and the sound of silence is deafening. You cannot and wil not find it. Stop it with the exaggerations, already.
I just want to get this straight. Your debate topic is for ME to explain why YOU think that the trial of Saddam should be held in the US? If that is the topic you are patently absurd. Explain it yourself, if you can.
FYI....debate topics are where two parties take two different stands on an issue. For example, I may believe the US should legalize marijuana and you may think we shouldn't.
A debate topic is not where one party tries to explain the rationale of the other party. The fact that I have to even explain this is disapointing.

Dont you realize when you post something here, it is pretty permanant, and can be referred to as needed? Whining and complaining about personal attacks on an anominous forum, is as stupid as Rush Limbaugh saying "he showed everyone back in 2001 that Saddam had connections to Al Queda"- ON A Radio program!
---I'll be waiting for you to show me the whining.

He cant show or prove anything over the radio waves! Nothing he says can be proven, anymore than GWB can prove Saddam "was someday going to come and attack us".
---The relevance to this thread is, is,is, is????????

My premise is this- He turned Saddam over to a "Interim Court", because he knew Saddam had not done anything to us, and this is a problem for Bush- because the rationale to go to war with him, was Saddam's proposed "Immediate Danger to us"-or some other thing like that.
---My answer to that stance was answered. I'll post again for you to peruse.
"ANSWER: --I would argue that the US respects the hundreds of thousands of lives that were taken by Saddam enough to have him stand trial in the country that he committed the crimes." AND "No. Assuming the place of the trial is related to the importance of humans' lives is shallow."

Pretty shallow, thin stuff, if you ask me- but if you asked the friends and family of all the soldiers to date, who have died, "why we went to war there?"- To bring Saddam to trial for crimes against his people- would not be on the rationale list. It was WMDS, It was threat to the U.S., it was non- complinace with resolutions. All the excuses GWB gave for going to war are blowing up in his face and now in yours, which is worse- because you dont want to seem wrong about anything- especially supporting an incompetent! This is silly and I am not attacking you- I NEED TO YOU REALIZE THAT GWB IS A SINGLE IRREVELANT MAN- THE REPUBS, NEO-CONS, CONSERVATIVES DONT NEED HIM- HE IS NOT GOD!! You can act like there are 289 million other Americans, that can be President of the U.S., and he is expendible, and you can put another repub in his place overnight, versus spending so much effort defending him and protecting him all over this board!
--- I get it. You hate GWB. If he is sooooooo irrelevant then why do you spend so much energy hating him and posting these threads?
---Now, to end this silliness; is this really your debate topic?

[gratelady1]

Because, as you state, they are outalndish. Why bother? You espouse that GWB is keeping Saddam's trial in Iraq for conspiritorial reasons. The fact that he is even on trial in the country that he commited the crimes in seems to be lost on you.
In short, countering an outlandish claim is, often times, not worth the effort.

Is the above your post? DO you claim- this is a good response to a posed question?

Is it your stance- that we should not have any reason to expect- Saddam to be brought here for trial, when we have invested so much in lives and resources to capture him?

My stance is clear and presented without effort to divert from this specific topic, if you can, answer these questions, and lets debate- or accept that you know better than to debate a failed concept.

[sweetpea]

Try to comprehend GLAdy1.
I see nothing wrong with trying Saddam in the country that he commited the crimes in.
Further, I see nothiong but conspiratorial paranoia on your part in trying to make an issue out of where he is being tried, when in fact he is being tried by the people he commited the crimes against.

[gratelady1]

Try to comprehend GLAdy1.
I see nothing wrong with trying Saddam in the country that he commited the crimes in.
Further, I see nothiong but conspiratorial paranoia on your part in trying to make an issue out of where he is being tried, when in fact he is being tried by the people he commited the crimes against.

So it is your stance that;- that we should not have any reason to expect- Saddam to be brought here for trial, when we have invested so much in lives and resources to capture him?

[sweetpea]

So it is your stance that;- that we should not have any reason to expect- Saddam to be brought here for trial, when we have invested so much in lives and resources to capture him?

For the umpteenth time. Nevermind. I answered this repeatedly. Read it a few hundred more times if you have to.

[gratelady1]

For the umpteenth time. Nevermind. I answered this repeatedly. Read it a few hundred more times if you have to.

Oh I am sorry, where is your answer? If you posted it umpteen times, I should be able to find it at least once, would you not agree?

[sweetpea]

Oh I am sorry, where is your answer? If you posted it umpteen times, I should be able to find it at least once, would you not agree?
--
Posts # 26, 31 AND 33.

[gratelady1]

Is it your stance- that we should not have any reason to expect- Saddam to be brought here for trial, when we have invested so much in lives and resources to capture him?



This question does not require an answer based on a different question, it is a very simple yes or no question. Why would you have a problem answering it specifically "yes" or "no"?

[sweetpea]

This question does not require an answer based on a different question, it is a very simple yes or no question. Why would you have a problem answering it specifically "yes" or "no"?


Asked and answered more than enough times. Tough that you don't like. Read post #33 again.

[gratelady1]

Try to comprehend GLAdy1.
I see nothing wrong with trying Saddam in the country that he commited the crimes in.
Further, I see nothiong but conspiratorial paranoia on your part in trying to make an issue out of where he is being tried, when in fact he is being tried by the people he commited the crimes against.

I did not ask you "if you see anything wrong with the "Saddam trial being held in Iraq", I asked "Is it your stance that we "Americans" Should not have any Expectations of bringing him here, considering we brought him down"- And considering we put up all our resources and U.S. soldiers' lives? I think you are just a simple coward and wont state the obvious- Because you know- there was no American rationale for going after Saddam- thus no trial would be justified here.

Since when do we put the interest of other countries before ours?
Since when are our troops to be used as an international police force?
Since when has traitorous actions, by our Political leaders to be tolerated?

Dare to deny it all!

[sweetpea]

I did not ask you "if you see anything wrong with the "Saddam trial being held in Iraq", I asked "Is it your stance that we "Americans" Should not have any Expectations of bringing him here, considering we brought him down"- And considering we put up all our resources and U.S. soldiers' lives? I think you are just a simple coward and wont state the obvious- Because you know- there was no American rationale for going after Saddam- thus no trial would be justified here.

Since when do we put the interest of other countries before ours?
Since when are our troops to be used as an international police force?
Since when has traitorous actions, by our Political leaders to be tolerated?

Dare to deny it all!
--
The fact that the trial is in Iraq I find it perfectly acceptable means is a mutually exclusive stance to expecting Saddam to be here.

As for being a coward which one of us has answered numerous questions from the other?; which one of us has lied about the other (I did not tell others to Ignore you-you know it-you lied).


Since when do we put the interest of other countries before ours?
For decades. Try WWI, WWII, Korea, Bosnia, Somalia, the list goes on and on. IF the world is safer, we are inherently safer.

Since when are our troops to be used as an international police force?
Ohhhh. let's see. Korea, Bosnia, Somalia, The Phillipines, shall I go on?

Since when has traitorous actions, by our Political leaders to be tolerated?
You mean like Kerry knowingly lying about the supposed atrocities he witnessed or Sandy Berger stealing classified documents on behalf of his ex-boss or Clinton being off shore only a few hundred miles from Iraq bad-mouthing our troops? Are those the actions you are tlking about?

Notice how I answer your questions. I'm still waiting on you to anser this question: When did I tell others to ignore you?

[gratelady1]

I often wondered why the Bush Administration did not bring the infamous Saddam Hussein here for trial, well there are some obvious reasons which need no emperical evidence to support them,

a) The man never really did anything to us- directly, so what would be the charge? Intention to do the U.S. harm, some time in the future-(all the Repubs would be lynched if that was a convictable offence)?

b) It turns out the Bush admin wants to keep the trial under wraps due to the fact that Saddam could reveal some damaging evidence against it, and thus why it has taken so long to commence.

I have always felt that the Bush admin, was remiss in it's affairs with Iraq, and the Pappa Bush had more rationale to invade Iraq than jr., but that is history. Now if only Bin Laden would see the brillance in surrendering and challenging the political charges against him. You see, it would have done the Bush admin a lot more harm/ cripple its intentions, if he would have surrendered to a neutral country and stood trial for what?- supporting an "Ideal", we pride ourselves in our freedom of expression- and post 9-11, all terrorist should have humiliated Bush's attempt to criminalize expression.

Dont get me wrong, I dont believe Bin Laden is innocent of the 9-11 incident, but then again, I would like a trial to prove it. The worst thing that could have happen for Bush, would have been if Bin Laden challenged the charges against him, and instead stop the years of cat and mouse chasing which instead gave Bush ammo to reinforce the fact of Bin Laden's gulit.

If Saddam had the sense God gave a tomato, he would have surrendered before the invasion, to a neutral country and would have been found innocent of all charges and it would have imbarrassed the Bush admin before the fact. Instead we can only infer that Saddam is uniquely stupid, had poor counsel, or was consistently lied to by the Bush admin, that all the prior would not happen, but then guess what- the Saudis would get their way!

Note the original date and beginning premise of this thread, my original post is still secure in it's premise, despite the divergence, by those who just wont accept the status of the reality as it stands today.

a) An unofficial, illegal, trial is still underway, and Saddam will not be allowed to testify about anything related to his and the U.S. relationship (prior to the Kuwait affair).
b) We were lied to- as far as the reasons for invading a sovereign country, which had not in any way violated any "American" interest or law.
c) 2000 plus U.S. Soldiers have died in that invasion and occupation, and with the power vacuum created by our invasion, security in Iraq is still embarrassing, I would be literally ashamed to be serving there right now- if success is measured in amount of lives saved versus taken (we suck- admit it).
d) Not many "Conservatives" have asked for or demanded Saddam be brought here, to investigate all U.S.- Iraq relations to date.

[sweetpea]

Note the original date and beginning premise of this thread, my original post is still secure in it's premise, despite the divergence, by those who just wont accept the status of the reality as it stands today.

a) An unofficial, illegal, trial is still underway, and Saddam will not be allowed to testify about anything related to his and the U.S. relationship (prior to the Kuwait affair).
---Unofficial and illegal? Tell that to teh Iraqis who are trying him. Tell that to the families of the hundreds of thousands of people he murdered. How do you know what he testify about....you his defense attorney?
b) We were lied to- as far as the reasons for invading a sovereign country, which had not in any way violated any "American" interest or law.
---Did Billy, Hillary, Kerry, Pelosi, Daschle, teh Un inspectors lie as well?
c) 2000 plus U.S. Soldiers have died in that invasion and occupation, and with the power vacuum created by our invasion, security in Iraq is still embarrassing, I would be literally ashamed to be serving there right now- if success is measured in amount of lives saved versus taken (we suck- admit it).
---If you are ashamed then don't serve. Facts are though that re-enlistments are up. And from those that are service to you they are probably saying you are welcome, even though all you do is piss and moan.
d) Not many "Conservatives" have asked for or demanded Saddam be brought here, to investigate all U.S.- Iraq relations to date.
---Yeah. No kidding. It is more important to be tried in the place where the crimes were commited. What is so difficult for you to grasp about that?


How about the rest of my answers to your questions. You forget about them? You ever going to tell me when I told others to ignore you?

[Jane of Arc]

---Unofficial and illegal? Tell that to teh Iraqis who are trying him. Tell that to the families of the hundreds of thousands of people he murdered. How do you know what he testify about....you his defense attorney?


(1) You do believe in fair trials for all, don't you sweetpea?

(2) Do you remember who Saddam was allies with when he was gassing and torturing his citizens? Bingo! The USA. And our government stood by and watched. Why? Because we wanted our puppet Saddam to go after a bigger threat ... Iran. We armed him to the teeth. We gave him the weapons, bombs and gas and Donald Rumsfeld shook that murderer's hand in endless photo-ops.

(3) How complicit is the US in the crimes against the Iraqi people Saddam is being tried for today? If I give you a gun when I know you are going to kill someone, am I complicit? And why can't that discussion be brought into a "fair trial"?

[sweetpea]

(1) You do believe in fair trials for all, don't you sweetpea?
--Yep. How about you? Do you believe in appropriate venues?

(2) Do you remember who Saddam was allies with when he was gassing and torturing his citizens? Bingo! The USA. And our government stood by and watched.

---And now have done something about it.....and yet you complain. What is / was your solution? More UN negotitations? More double talk from Pelosi, JKerry et.al.?
Why? Because we wanted our puppet Saddam to go after a bigger threat ... Iran. We armed him to the teeth. We gave him the weapons, bombs and gas and Donald Rumsfeld shook that murderer's hand in endless photo-ops.
---Well that settles it, then. we should just let him go and let him and his Baathists have some jolly fun. At least you'll be happy.

(3) How complicit is the US in the crimes against the Iraqi people Saddam is being tried for today? If I give you a gun when I know you are going to kill someone, am I complicit? And why can't that discussion be brought into a "fair trial"?
--Call his Defense attorney and have him bring it up. Or better yet, just let him go. After all everything is the fault of the US anyway (especially if a REp. is in the White House)

[Jane of Arc]

Answer the question sweetpea~

If I sold you a gun knowing you were committing crimes and killing people would I be complicit?

[sweetpea]

Answer the question sweetpea~

If I sold you a gun knowing you were committing crimes and killing people would I be complicit?

I'll answer yours if you answer mine.

[Jane of Arc]

I'll answer yours if you answer mine.

What is your question?

[Jane of Arc]

Sweetpea~

Nevermind. Don't answer my question. I don't care.

[gratelady1]

I often wondered why the Bush Administration did not bring the infamous Saddam Hussein here for trial, well there are some obvious reasons which need no emperical evidence to support them,

a) The man never really did anything to us- directly, so what would be the charge? Intention to do the U.S. harm, some time in the future-(all the Repubs would be lynched if that was a convictable offence)?

b) It turns out the Bush admin wants to keep the trial under wraps due to the fact that Saddam could reveal some damaging evidence against it, and thus why it has taken so long to commence.

I have always felt that the Bush admin, was remiss in it's affairs with Iraq, and the Pappa Bush had more rationale to invade Iraq than jr., but that is history. Now if only Bin Laden would see the brillance in surrendering and challenging the political charges against him. You see, it would have done the Bush admin a lot more harm/ cripple its intentions, if he would have surrendered to a neutral country and stood trial for what?- supporting an "Ideal", we pride ourselves in our freedom of expression- and post 9-11, all terrorist should have humiliated Bush's attempt to criminalize expression.

Dont get me wrong, I dont believe Bin Laden is innocent of the 9-11 incident, but then again, I would like a trial to prove it. The worst thing that could have happen for Bush, would have been if Bin Laden challenged the charges against him, and instead stop the years of cat and mouse chasing which instead gave Bush ammo to reinforce the fact of Bin Laden's gulit.

If Saddam had the sense God gave a tomato, he would have surrendered before the invasion, to a neutral country and would have been found innocent of all charges and it would have imbarrassed the Bush admin before the fact. Instead we can only infer that Saddam is uniquely stupid, had poor counsel, or was consistently lied to by the Bush admin, that all the prior would not happen, but then guess what- the Saudis would get their way!

Note the original date and beginning premise of this thread, my original post is still secure in it's premise, despite the divergence, by those who just wont accept the status of the reality as it stands today.

a) An unofficial, illegal, trial is still underway, and Saddam will not be allowed to testify about anything related to his and the U.S. relationship (prior to the Kuwait affair).
b) We were lied to- as far as the reasons for invading a sovereign country, which had not in any way violated any "American" interest or law.
c) 2000 plus U.S. Soldiers have died in that invasion and occupation, and with the power vacuum created by our invasion, security in Iraq is still embarrassing, I would be literally ashamed to be serving there right now- if success is measured in amount of lives saved versus taken (we suck- admit it).
d) Not many "Conservatives" have asked for or demanded Saddam be brought here, to investigate all U.S.- Iraq relations to date.

You thread crappers cant bury my posts- Ill show you! I am here always- ready to one-up you, ready to stand and fight for "Freedom, and the American way!"- HAhhhAHHAHAAAA, hAHAHHHaaaaahhahah!!!
WHOOP! :D

[Jane of Arc]

Note the original date and beginning premise of this thread, my original post is still secure in it's premise, despite the divergence, by those who just wont accept the status of the reality as it stands today.

a) An unofficial, illegal, trial is still underway, and Saddam will not be allowed to testify about anything related to his and the U.S. relationship (prior to the Kuwait affair).
b) We were lied to- as far as the reasons for invading a sovereign country, which had not in any way violated any "American" interest or law.
c) 2000 plus U.S. Soldiers have died in that invasion and occupation, and with the power vacuum created by our invasion, security in Iraq is still embarrassing, I would be literally ashamed to be serving there right now- if success is measured in amount of lives saved versus taken (we suck- admit it).
d) Not many "Conservatives" have asked for or demanded Saddam be brought here, to investigate all U.S.- Iraq relations to date.

You thread crappers cant bury my posts- Ill show you! I am here always- ready to one-up you, ready to stand and fight for "Freedom, and the American way!"- HAhhhAHHAHAAAA, hAHAHHHaaaaahhahah!!!
WHOOP! :D


Good for you gratelady1!!!! If it means anything ... I find this an important thread and I'm happy you brushed it off, polished it's shoes and you're keeping it going!

Speaking of Saddam, the Iraq War and the whole mess ... would you please listen to something on a thread I posted? Go to the thread here : ~ A Question on Oil for Thinking People to Debate~. I would love to have your agile, creative mind get involved with the discussion on "peak oil". I am finding that once we begin to understand the peak oil crisis ... all the pieces of the puzzle start fitting together.

Here's the link on the thread I want you to hear: (Scroll to the bottom and click on "Listen Now".)

http://globalpublicmedia.com/interviews/615

[gratelady1]

Good for you gratelady1!!!! If it means anything ... I find this an important thread and I'm happy you brushed it off, polished it's shoes and you're keeping it going!

Speaking of Saddam, the Iraq War and the whole mess ... would you please listen to something on a thread I posted? Go to the thread here : ~ A Question on Oil for Thinking People to Debate~. I would love to have your agile, creative mind get involved with the discussion on "peak oil". I am finding that once we begin to understand the peak oil crisis ... all the pieces of the puzzle start fitting together.

Here's the link on the thread I want you to hear: (Scroll to the bottom and click on "Listen Now".)

http://globalpublicmedia.com/interviews/615

Yes- I promise to get to it when I get back to A&M- my laptop at home will not support long 34 minute downloads (antiquated technology), but I do my best to research all posts. :)

[sweetpea]

What is your question?


Do you believe in appropriate venues?

What is / was your solution?

[sweetpea]

Note the original date and beginning premise of this thread, my original post is still secure in it's premise, despite the divergence, by those who just wont accept the status of the reality as it stands today.

a) An unofficial, illegal, trial is still underway, and Saddam will not be allowed to testify about anything related to his and the U.S. relationship (prior to the Kuwait affair).
b) We were lied to- as far as the reasons for invading a sovereign country, which had not in any way violated any "American" interest or law.
c) 2000 plus U.S. Soldiers have died in that invasion and occupation, and with the power vacuum created by our invasion, security in Iraq is still embarrassing, I would be literally ashamed to be serving there right now- if success is measured in amount of lives saved versus taken (we suck- admit it).
d) Not many "Conservatives" have asked for or demanded Saddam be brought here, to investigate all U.S.- Iraq relations to date.

You thread crappers cant bury my posts- Ill show you! I am here always- ready to one-up you, ready to stand and fight for "Freedom, and the American way!"- HAhhhAHHAHAAAA, hAHAHHHaaaaahhahah!!!
WHOOP! :D


See post #43.

[gratelady1]

See post #43.

I ignored #43, each premise is based on your "false conclusions"- the people in charge of the trial were appointed by Bush- what's your point there? Yes I would imagine it means a lot to them- and Bush- but to this U.S. citizen it means nothing- does that bother you? If it does- I will call the FBI and charge you with "Treason"- because you care more about a foreign country- than your own, and about things that go on in a foreign country than your own!

On your second point- yes all those folks you mentioned, which are in bed with Bush lied also- You have to admit- we are in Iraq- you cant avoid or hide that fact!

On your third point- I have already served- And I have my DD-214 to prove it, And I can say unequivically- when I served- you were not allowed to screw-up as much as our military leaders in Iraq are screwingup today! The captain of our ship would have shot us- if we screwed up as bad as our military is screwing up and emarrassing our country- I will not tolerate the incompetence you may have conscrewed in your mind as excellent service!

On your 4th point- you, like Bush are so stupid- when you outright admit the only crime committed by Saddam was to his own people- not to us, this in fact supports the claim that we should not have went after him in the first place- we had no reason!! Which then supports that the trial is illegal!!, which then supports the fact that you and Bush are suffering from a shared uncurable psychosis!

And on your last statement, since all your premise have been debunked, and you have been completely embarrased, why do you believe I or anyone, would waste time answering any of your questions? None of your statements or questions make sense!

[sweetpea]

I ignored #43, each premise is based on your "false conclusions"- the people in charge of the trial were appointed by Bush- what's your point there?
--Too bad for you. You can't debate my points then tough.

Yes I would imagine it means a lot to them- and Bush- but to this U.S. citizen it means nothing- does that bother you? If it does- I will call the FBI and charge you with "Treason"- because you care more about a foreign country- than your own, and about things that go on in a foreign country than your own!
--LOL. Please do. Call the FBI. Please. Do it.

On your second point- yes all those folks you mentioned, which are in bed with Bush lied also- You have to admit- we are in Iraq- you cant avoid or hide that fact!
---Did I ever say we wern't in Iraq?

On your third point- I have already served- And I have my DD-214 to prove it, And I can say unequivically- when I served- you were not allowed to screw-up as much as our military leaders in Iraq are screwingup today! The captain of our ship would have shot us- if we screwed up as bad as our military is screwing up and emarrassing our country- I will not tolerate the incompetence you may have conscrewed in your mind as excellent service!
--Good for you. why have you become so cynical and bitter? I assure you the average Joe isn't.

On your 4th point- you, like Bush are so stupid- when you outright admit the only crime committed by Saddam was to his own people- not to us, this in fact supports the claim that we should not have went after him in the first place- we had no reason!! Which then supports that the trial is illegal!!, which then supports the fact that you and Bush are suffering from a shared uncurable psychosis!
---Using that logic means that the Nurrenburg trial should not have occurred. We hould not have gone to Korea, Bosnia, Somalia, Haiti, Vietnam, or the western front of WWII. Do you believe those wars were entered by pshychotics?

And on your last statement, since all your premise have been debunked, and you have been completely embarrased, why do you believe I or anyone, would waste time answering any of your questions? None of your statements or questions make sense!
1. Because I've had the courtesy to answer yours over and again.
2. You have to resort to lies when the debate turns against you. I never told others to ignore you and called you on it. Eitehr admit it was a lie or show me where I did it.
3. Classic cop-out. Of course all of your twisted logic makes sense, but someone with differeing viewpoints just don't make sense. Translation = you cannot deal honestly with differing opnions and have to resort to dismissing other opinions and lying about the posts of others.

[sweetpea]

I forgot to ask, GLAdy1.

Can you point out when I told others to ignore you?

chirp, chirp , chirp.

[Jane of Arc]

A picture speaks a 1,000 words. The same Neocons were good buddies with Saddam while he was gassing his people.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/handshake300.jpg
Shaking Hands: Iraqi President Saddam Hussein greets Donald Rumsfeld, then special envoy of
President Ronald Reagan, in Baghdad on December 20, 1983.

From the National Security Archives:http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

"The current Bush administration discusses Iraq in starkly moralistic terms to further its goal of
persuading a skeptical world that a preemptive and premeditated attack on Iraq could and should be
supported as a "just war." The documents included in this briefing book reflect the realpolitik
that determined this country's policies during the years when Iraq was actually employing chemical
weapons. Actual rather than rhetorical opposition to such use was evidently not perceived to serve
U.S. interests; instead, the Reagan administration did not deviate from its determination that
Iraq was to serve as the instrument to prevent an Iranian victory. Chemical warfare was viewed as
a potentially embarrassing public relations problem that complicated efforts to provide assistance.
The Iraqi government's repressive internal policies, though well known to the U.S. government at
the time, did not figure at all in the presidential directives that established U.S. policy toward
the Iran-Iraq war. The U.S. was concerned with its ability to project military force in the Middle
East, and to keep the oil flowing."


Who else should be on trial???

[gratelady1]

I often wondered why the Bush Administration did not bring the infamous Saddam Hussein here for trial, well there are some obvious reasons which need no emperical evidence to support them,

a) The man never really did anything to us- directly, so what would be the charge? Intention to do the U.S. harm, some time in the future-(all the Repubs would be lynched if that was a convictable offence)?

b) It turns out the Bush admin wants to keep the trial under wraps due to the fact that Saddam could reveal some damaging evidence against it, and thus why it has taken so long to commence.

I have always felt that the Bush admin, was remiss in it's affairs with Iraq, and the Pappa Bush had more rationale to invade Iraq than jr., but that is history. Now if only Bin Laden would see the brillance in surrendering and challenging the political charges against him. You see, it would have done the Bush admin a lot more harm/ cripple its intentions, if he would have surrendered to a neutral country and stood trial for what?- supporting an "Ideal", we pride ourselves in our freedom of expression- and post 9-11, all terrorist should have humiliated Bush's attempt to criminalize expression.

Dont get me wrong, I dont believe Bin Laden is innocent of the 9-11 incident, but then again, I would like a trial to prove it. The worst thing that could have happen for Bush, would have been if Bin Laden challenged the charges against him, and instead stop the years of cat and mouse chasing which instead gave Bush ammo to reinforce the fact of Bin Laden's gulit.

If Saddam had the sense God gave a tomato, he would have surrendered before the invasion, to a neutral country and would have been found innocent of all charges and it would have imbarrassed the Bush admin before the fact. Instead we can only infer that Saddam is uniquely stupid, had poor counsel, or was consistently lied to by the Bush admin, that all the prior would not happen, but then guess what- the Saudis would get their way!

A long time ago- in a blog so far away;

There was this sweet little pea, he had all the hopes of protecting his President from would be outlandish propogandist, who wanted to bring down his mighty Fascist, Emperical, Nazi, Furer, but alas, the pea had a problem, he would get stuck on stupid , little insignificant, non-related issues- not even tangent to the main premise of the thread.

This sweet little pea continued to target this issue of "why soemone would claim he had suggested to ignore the "meany blogger"", but our little pea, just felt slighted, and had to hold his ground- the answer to his question was important- yet noone could understand why the answer would be sooo important to the little pea. Was it need for some intangible credibilty?, Was it need for some glorious glory?, Was it that the pea had nothing better to offer, but complaints against his treatment on the blog?

Sweetpea- did not realize that his first answer; "Your consipracy theories should not be answered" etc. is in fact a way of trying to get others to ignore someone through de-credibilitizing that someone. But it is far more important to browbeat someone, than seek the truth, about rationalizations for a "Just War"!

[Jane of Arc]

The Neocons just love their totalitarian buddies! Isn't it strange how a Bin Laden family member attacked our country?
http://www.oilempire.us/graphics/YE_MIDEAST.jpg

We are trying Saddam for his crimes when he never attacked our country. Bin Laden is free to attack America again.
http://www.adl.org/terrorism_america/bin_laden1.jpg

[gratelady1]

The Neocons just love their totalitarian buddies! Isn't it strange how a Bin Laden family member attacked our country?
http://www.oilempire.us/graphics/YE_MIDEAST.jpg

We are trying Saddam for his crimes when he never attacked our country. Bin Laden is free to attack America again.
http://www.adl.org/terrorism_america/bin_laden1.jpg

You know "What", As strong as your evidence is, and despite the undenialable, revelations since GWB took office, Neo-cons, Repubs, and certain conservatives will not accept specific truths- Somehow they have created a pyschosis so maligned, that to even suggest they "Think about it", might actually send them to a place they have no which to go.

As a worse case scenario; Imagine you wake up one morning and realize your Son or Daughter, Husband or Wife, Father or Mother, is just not there anymore! That you realize that they are dead simply because every rationale given by a poilitical leader was either flawed, unsound, weak or based on out-right lies.

These folks have to support the rationale of the said politicial leader, they have no choice- to protect thier cognitive image of themselves and thier ability to gauge thier political acceptance decision making abilities.

Those that continue to follow and defend Bush, who have not lost anyone, I cant for the life of me explain why they would need to protect thier cognitive defense mechanisms. At anytime they can simply say "You know what- even if Bush is right about his policies, does it not make perfect sense to replace him with someone who is not a proven "Idiot and self admitted incomptent". I would not predjudize against a political party because they replaced thier leader, in fact, I would respect them more because they showed "A Conscience", a greater- more secured, moral highground. And this is something most political parties lack. They fear that if you can prove anyone incompetent- then they all must be incompetent- they have been so intrenched in using "The poison the well theory" so long, that they are uniquely senitive about it being used against them.

[sweetpea]

A long time ago- in a blog so far away;

There was this sweet little pea, he had all the hopes of protecting his President from would be outlandish propogandist, who wanted to bring down his mighty Fascist, Emperical, Nazi, Furer, but alas, the pea had a problem, he would get stuck on stupid , little insignificant, non-related issues- not even tangent to the main premise of the thread.

This sweet little pea continued to target this issue of "why soemone would claim he had suggested to ignore the "meany blogger"", but our little pea, just felt slighted, and had to hold his ground- the answer to his question was important- yet noone could understand why the answer would be sooo important to the little pea. Was it need for some intangible credibilty?, Was it need for some glorious glory?, Was it that the pea had nothing better to offer, but complaints against his treatment on the blog?

Sweetpea- did not realize that his first answer; "Your consipracy theories should not be answered" etc. is in fact a way of trying to get others to ignore someone through de-credibilitizing that someone. But it is far more important to browbeat someone, than seek the truth, about rationalizations for a "Just War"!
--This little fairy tale. Does it mean you can or cannot find where I told others to ignore you. I keep bringing it up for one main reason.
1.) It demonstrates that when the debate goes sour for you you resort to lying.

Additionally, this post of yours also demonstrates you have to resort to name calling and silly tales. I thought Progressives searched for ways to improve things. Name calling, lying and silly tales gets you nowhere and lends you zero credibility.

My offer stands. You can pick th esubject and we can debate using the rules we agreed upon. I offer this even though you cannot seem to abide by them in this forum.

[Jane of Arc]

Speaking of fairy tails ...

http://earthhopenetwork.net/bush%20art/new%20bush%20photos/saddam_bush_briefs.jpg

[gratelady1]

--This little fairy tale. Does it mean you can or cannot find where I told others to ignore you. I keep bringing it up for one main reason.
1.) It demonstrates that when the debate goes sour for you you resort to lying.

Additionally, this post of yours also demonstrates you have to resort to name calling and silly tales. I thought Progressives searched for ways to improve things. Name calling, lying and silly tales gets you nowhere and lends you zero credibility.

My offer stands. You can pick th esubject and we can debate using the rules we agreed upon. I offer this even though you cannot seem to abide by them in this forum.

Ok you want a debate where I dont rely on lying, and no name calling and sticking to the issue- right?

Here is a debate;
PFC Jessica Lynch- she served was injured, raped, taken captive, rescued, and initially reveared as a "Hero". She went on to release a book that offered to dispell many beliefs about the whole ordeal.

I propose that there is reason for debate here, the problems;
Why does her book currently sell for $1.99?
Why have the pro-war crowd, just ignored it?
Why has she not been in the news much- if at all, of late?
Would you consider her a "Hero"?
What ever happen to Captain King the fellow that screwed up the whole operation, that cost us the lives of the first folks to die in the invasion of Iraq?

Any background?;
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/291003lynchrescuers.html
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/07/10/1057783269272.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,89528,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3251731.stm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/23/iraq/main682519.shtml
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/12/national/main606016.shtml
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/06/national/main582204.shtml

How someone could go from nothing to hero to nowhere so quick is astonishing, but for course if the Bush Admin cant use it, they loose it!

[sweetpea]

Ok you want a debate where I dont rely on lying, and no name calling and sticking to the issue- right?

Here is a debate;
PFC Jessica Lynch- she served was injured, raped, taken captive, rescued, and initially reveared as a "Hero". She went on to release a book that offered to dispell many beliefs about the whole ordeal.

I propose that there is reason for debate here, the problems;
Why does her book currently sell for $1.99?
Why have the pro-war crowd, just ignored it?
Why has she not been in the news much- if at all, of late?
Would you consider her a "Hero"?
What ever happen to Captain King the fellow that screwed up the whole operation, that cost us the lives of the first folks to die in the invasion of Iraq?

Any background?;
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/291003lynchrescuers.html
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/07/10/1057783269272.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,89528,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3251731.stm
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/23/iraq/main682519.shtml
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/03/12/national/main606016.shtml
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/06/national/main582204.shtml

How someone could go from nothing to hero to nowhere so quick is astonishing, but for course if the Bush Admin cant use it, they loose it!

What is your position?

[gratelady1]

My position is- that Bush and Co. are nothing but worthless propogandist, and when a worthy news item is there for the picking- they ignore it, because it dose not serve thier best interest. I beleive that she and her team were originally used to bring drama to the Iraq theatre- by allowing if not ordering the convoy to a dangerous unsecured place. I beleive U.S. intelligence forces have been behind many of the strange outcomes in Iraq and this is just another that blew up in GWB's face. But this is my opinion- that and ten bucks might get you a cup of coffe at starbucks.

[sweetpea]

My position is- that Bush and Co. are nothing but worthless propogandist, and when a worthy news item is there for the picking- they ignore it, because it dose not serve thier best interest. I beleive that she and her team were originally used to bring drama to the Iraq theatre- by allowing if not ordering the convoy to a dangerous unsecured place. I beleive U.S. intelligence forces have been behind many of the strange outcomes in Iraq and this is just another that blew up in GWB's face. But this is my opinion- that and ten bucks might get you a cup of coffe at starbucks.

--My position is that GWB has better things to do that "pick" or not "pick" news stories to discuss.
And that your view that she or any other soldiers being ordered into life threatening situations for the purpose of dramatizing the war is beyond ridiculous. I also believe it points out how delusional and paranoid you are.
But, if that is your view..........then prove it.

[gratelady1]

--My position is that GWB has better things to do that "pick" or not "pick" news stories to discuss.
And that your view that she or any other soldiers being ordered into life threatening situations for the purpose of dramatizing the war is beyond ridiculous. I also believe it points out how delusional and paranoid you are.
But, if that is your view..........then prove it.

Please note; you asked my position- thus I took it as you wanted my opinion, and I gave it- to be honest enough to get it out of the way- so we could attempt to debate the issue and the related events and facts as they have been documented.

My opinion is a personal thing and not open to debate- anymore than your opinion is of any value more than mine.

To express your opinion about my opinion is a personal attack on me- and is not relevant to the disscussion, I thought you wanted to discuss the issue- I gave you the background material, and we can use that as fodder for debate, but lets agree to keep each others' personal opinions between oursleves- or like you said- of what good is your credibility?

Do you want to debate, or just want to prove to everyone you dont know how to debate, and just know how to attack folks on this forum, and deminish them in some way?

Let me right now admit to the entire world I am ______________, _____________ ____________ and ____________!- you fill in the blanks with the worst possible imaginable person, you cant prove me any worse, because I am the lowest of the low, Ok feel better now, can we get "ME" out of the way and agree that regardless of how inept and incompetent to debate I may be, I will try to anyway and you can embarrass me till Jesus comes back for all I care. Now that we have "ME" out of the way and you know what I am, can we debate?

Question; have you read her book- "I am a soldier too"?

[sweetpea]

Please note; you asked my position- thus I took it as you wanted my opinion, and I gave it- to be honest enough to get it out of the way- so we could attempt to debate the issue and the related events and facts as they have been documented.

My opinion is a personal thing and not open to debate- anymore than your opinion is of any value more than mine.

To express your opinion about my opinion is a personal attack on me- and is not relevant to the disscussion, I thought you wanted to discuss the issue- I gave you the background material, and we can use that as fodder for debate, but lets agree to keep each others' personal opinions between oursleves- or like you said- of what good is your credibility?

Do you want to debate, or just want to prove to everyone you dont know how to debate, and just know how to attack folks on this forum, and deminish them in some way?

Let me right now admit to the entire world I am ______________, _____________ ____________ and ____________!- you fill in the blanks with the worst possible imaginable person, you cant prove me any worse, because I am the lowest of the low, Ok feel better now, can we get "ME" out of the way and agree that regardless of how inept and incompetent to debate I may be, I will try to anyway and you can embarrass me till Jesus comes back for all I care. Now that we have "ME" out of the way and you know what I am, can we debate?

Question; have you read her book- "I am a soldier too"?

GLady,
Unjerk your knee. Opinions are what we are debating. That is what debates are about.

If you rstatement that your opinion is a personal thing and is not up for debate is true then it is a two way street. would you not agree?

I am not attacking you personally by disagreeing with your opinion. I'm sorry you cannot recognize the difference.

You still want to take the cahllenge? If not, just say it.

[FDRfollower]

:eek: If you thought that the administration couldn't get to a lower level in immorality then they have so far, well, they're doing it again.

Ramsey Clark is warning that, in order to have some good "news" for the Republican on the 7th, massive pressure is being put on the Iraqi government to declare Saddam guilty and executed on the 5th. Bad enough that his defense has been bumped off and stonewalled.

Doesn't this take the cake. Putting the troops in harms way when everything blows up for a friggin mid-term election.

[FDRfollower]

What inconsistancies do you see in this news report from the Houston Chronicle?

The station earlier was airing national songs after the first announcement and had a tag on the screen that read "Saddam's execution marks the end of a dark period of Iraq's history."

The execution came 56 days after a court convicted Saddam and sentenced him to death for his role in the killings of 148 Shiite Muslims from a town where assassins tried to kill the dictator in 1982. Iraq's highest court rejected Saddam's appeal Monday and ordered him executed within 30 days.

A U.S. judge on Friday refused to stop Saddam's execution, rejecting a last-minute court challenge.

Al-Maliki had rejected calls that Saddam be spared, telling families of people killed during the dictator's rule that would be an insult to the victims.

"Our respect for human rights requires us to execute him, and there will be no review or delay in carrying out the sentence," al-Maliki's office quoted him as saying during a meeting with relatives before the hanging.

[Mr. Anderson]

I'd have to say FDRfollower, that the proverbial fly in the ointment would be the U.S. judge. What authority does a U.S. judge have in an Iraqi court? (We all know the answer to that and we know this is a 'U.S. monkey trial.')

Did I find the inconsistancy? Did I win? Do I get a prize??? :jumpjoy:

[haus]

Call me morbid, but I nosed around the net looking for the video of the actual execution and couldn't find it. Not surprisingly, Al Jazeera's coverage (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/00086B05-1552-4329-BB22-02F15D2E25DF.htm) is less sanitized than CNN's.

http://english.aljazeera.net/mritems/images/2006/12/30/1_204157_1_5.jpg

[FDRfollower]

"Saddam's execution marks the end of a dark period of Iraq's history."

With hundreds dying daily in "civil" war in the most horrible way, it seems much worse now, not the end of a dark period.

"Our respect for human rights requires us to execute him,
I thought the inconsistancy of this made it obvious.:o

The other was the fact that Saddam was in US custody. He was in the Green Zone which is the US occupied sector, under the custody of the US military as a prisoner of war, executed by a puppet Iraqi "government"

[cat's meow]

Thank the Bush administration for not getting the mission accomplished here...


Saddam was only convicted of 148 deaths
Saddam has thousands of deaths (namely Kurds) that are left outstanding/untried
The Kurd deaths plus many more are now not legally docuented so future generations know what to avoid
So the argument from the right is that we went into Iraq because of the 'thousands of deaths' when now the record officially does not show that


...again, mission NOT accomplished.

[Mr. Anderson]

"Our respect for human rights requires us to execute him"

You're right FRDF. I don't know how I missed that. And it's pure NEWSPEAK.

I don't know about anyone else, but Saddam's execution made me feel sick to my stomach. (Thanks for the picture, haus.) I don't believe in the dehumanization of anyone. It weakens and trivializes humanity.

The U.S. government made Saddam, backed Saddam, armed Saddam and killed Saddam.

[FDRfollower]

One thing that I have a serious lack of knowledge of, is the Kurds. I have some general knowledge about the history of the region, for instance, in the case of the Sykes/Picot treaty which divided the region in a really disasterous way for everyone in the area. The Brits really played a devious game by giving the various "ethic" groups and countries various areas of land that overlaped each other, which ensured all sorts of conflicts.

After the first gulf war or before, while the coallition had the north of Iraq under the no-fly zone protection, what was the US/Brits doing in terms of arming/training the Kurds? Did the US/British run a "Bay of Pigs" operation with the Kurds ensuring Saddam would react with the harsh measures that he did, courtesy of the weapons that we supplied him. It is mentioned in the reports, that the 148 Kurds he killed, were done under the pretext of getting people who were trying to assassinate him.

Oh, what a mess.