ICC can’t do anything to somebody that is still in power. I fail to see how that would get rid of him. Giving them military recourses for an invasion? What is the point of giving it to them if you don’t want a war? They still need to go in and get him. If you threw divine intervention or somehow, assassinate Saddam, his sons who are equally if not more worse will just rise. Plus it would be easier for me alone to assassinate GWB then Saddam. We have tried to assassinate Saddam about Saddam has probably the most ruthless security I know of. He has meals at ever palace as if he was going to be there. He has doubles everywhere, in fact before the war he hadn't been seen in over 4 years. He stages fake coups. He will have his own men gagged in the middle of the night as if a coup is underway and if they answer that they are for it they don't wake up again. To actually see Saddam Hussein one is blind folded and driven in a tented van off outside of Iraq where they are strip searched washed in mineral oil then given new cloths. Then Saddam doesn’t even always show up. Saddam also plays favorites with the different ethnic groups so that if lets say you kill his sons to and the heads of the Baath party then the other groups would go to war. So there for the minority Sunni are Saddam sympathizers no matter how awful he really is. If the Baath party collapses without a force there would be more deaths then this war. What would more sanction enforcement do without tanks? How would you get the Oil for food program there in power without getting ride of his forces? I can’t see how a bunch of guys with food saying “No this is for the people” with a t-72 barrel pointed at them. This also would not rid us of Saddam. Or because it wouldn't work. I fail to see how assassination would be a long term answer anyways.
Salty, It wouldn't. But any and all crimes committed after the ratification are - and that's where the UN observers and the military resources come in. I have yet to hear, after 4 months of asking, a decent reason as to why it takes a full-scale invasion of a country to get one man. See, I'm not saying give the ICC enough military resources to invade a country, I'm saying give them enough to carry out an opposed extraction of a small number of men. Another reason to not like the idea and to go with the ICC idea then. That's an argument for 20 years ago when the US was putting Saddam in place. Not an argument for not using a minimum-force solution now. Money is a more effective long-term tool than firearms. But what exactly do you think the sanctions were being enforced with, firecrackers and foul language? You don't. You just cut off the program until the UN's terms are complied with. And yet, that same bunch of guys was able to eliminate 97% of Saddam's proscribed weapons and then another bunch were able to inspect all of the remaining weapons - all of which was done without needing a full-scale invasion. I've yet to hear a decent reason why it wouldn't work. Hell, I've yet to hear a reason that stood up to more than a minute's consideration. It's not - that's one of the main reasons I'm opposed to it.
Your idea dosent get ride of him. The only part the, assasination part, was the only thing that came close.
Salty, It doesn't get rid of him for past transgressions. It does prevent any future transgressions. From the point of view of those living in Iraq right now, it was the minimum-cost solution. If it's vengance you want, firstly we need to know what the grievance was, and secondly, to borrow a chinese phrase, go dig two graves.
So this will stop him from throwing his own people into a plastic shreader how? http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/World/saddam_son_030214.html Also if he does something that imposes stiff sanctions then he won't starve nor will his army just the people.
Salty, First off, the odds of me trusting a US mainstream source today are similar to me believing Hussein himself - not only are they biased, it's completely legal for them to lie on air and that has been upheld in a Florida appellate court. Secondly, it prevents it because if he were to commit such a crime, it would be discovered by the UN observers, a charge would be filed in the ICC, and he'd be prosecuted by them (that's where the military extraction comes in). There would be no sanctions.
Salty, I'm saying I don't believe the details reported on US news. And there's a large difference between forcibly abducting one person from a country and invading that country. And if you can't see the difference, there's no point in continuing in this discussion.
You are still putting armed forces into a naiton and taking the head of state out it is still by deffinition an invasion. Your still going to need to drop bombs and use tanks. People will still die. Your idea just leaves them with another general or son taking inheriting his rule. Or are you just expecting to walk up past his SAMs Tanks AK-47s and take him?
It most certainly is not. Go do some more reading. It also leaves them with the same ICC monitoring the legality of their actions - and now, there's precedent for charging the head of state for illegal acts.
You are entering by force. Then you are saying what they can and cannot do threw the ICC. Hence you just invaded. Still how do you exspect to get him without violence?
For pity's sake, is there anyone in here with an education equivalent to having finished high school/secondary school/GCSEs/whatever? Main Entry: in·va·sion Pronunciation: in-'vA-zh&n Function: noun Etymology: Middle English invasioune, from Middle French invasion, from Late Latin invasion-, invasio, from Latin invadere to invade Date: 15th century 1 : an act of invading; especially : incursion of an army for conquest or plunder 2 : the incoming or spread of something usually hurtful Since you're extracting someone by force using a relatively small military force, not conquering or plundering with a full army, it's not an invasion. No, we, the international community, say what can and cannot be done. It's called international humanitarian law, and it took hundreds of years to get it agreed upon to the stage it's at now (with the Geneva and Hague conventions and so on). The ICC just decides if it has been broken, and what the penalty is. Which is one reason that so many people are so pissed off at Bush, by the way: what right has he - an ex-cocaine-sniffing, ex-alcoholic, right-wing born-again christian whose military record is one of desertion in a time of war and whose family's history includes business deals with the Nazi party before and during WW2, and one of the biggest massacres in violation of the Geneva Convention that a western nation has ever committed - got to break a convention 200 years in the making, which he's signed up to honour, with months of premeditation (remember, Wolfowitz has now said that the decision to invade Iraq was made on 13/9/01) and on false grounds? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I don't. That's why I said military resources, not meter maids. But a military operation to extact one man is NOT going to kill the 7000+ innocent civilians that the invasion has so far killed (and that figure has not stopped climbing, by the way).
From that same source, Invade: an act of invading; especially : incursion of an army for conquest or plunder. You take thier leader which is plundering, You give the ICC an outside force the right to dictate what somebody is doing is moral and imoral in that nation so that is conqouring hence you still just invaded. Its the international community that has control then the international community just conquered so woopty doo its still an invasion. Small what do you mean by small. a Helicopter? a patalion of tanks 1 whole core? I find it funny though that you think a small army which probably means much less then that of what the United States used can find saddam and not kill him but abduct him.
Hoo-ray, you can read. Oh dear. Apparently you can read, you just don't want to. Main Entry: 1plun·der Pronunciation: 'pl&n-d&r Function: verb Inflected Form(s): plun·dered; plun·der·ing /-d(&-)ri[ng]/ Etymology: German plündern Date: 1632 transitive senses 1 a : to take the goods of by force (as in war) : PILLAGE, SACK <invaders plundered the town> b : to take by force or wrongfully : STEAL, LOOT 2 : to make extensive use of as if by plundering : use or use up wrongfully <plunder the land> intransitive senses : to commit robbery or looting Note here, that plunder is taking goods by force, not carrying out an arrest on a legally-issued warrant. Nope. First of all, the ICC is a court of law, so you have rights in it, and those rights are not something the ICC can overrule. Secondly, the rules the ICC must act according to are not set by the ICC, they are set by the international community, of which Iraq is a part. Think of it like this - you must live according to the rules of your society - but as you are a part of that society, you have a say (however small) in shaping those rules. In other words, the ICC isn't dictating what is and is not moral - it is an enforcement mechanism to make sure that people don't do what they have agreed is immoral. No it isn't, so we haven't. But Iraq is a part of the international community (at least they were until the US illegally invaded and conquered them) and so your arguement seems to be that they've invaded themselves? I mean the smallest force required to to the job of arresting the target and extracting him from the country. Child, the army the US used was large because the point in invading Iraq was to topple the government and thereby gain control of the oil fields. As they have done. And the decision to do that dates from 9/13/03, according to Wolfowitz, who has since stated that the reason for invasion was oil and the purported saddam-9/11 link and the WMDs were merely convienent excuses, both of which have turned out to be lies. In short, if you want to invade a country to plunder its natural resources, you need a big army. If you want to carry out a legal arrest on an international warrant, you don't.
Israel's STATE SPONSORED TERRORISM "Cheaper by the dozen?" Abdulla: Tell me Jer(re)k, Israel's massacre of 28,000 innocent civilians in Lebanon, summer of 1982, ( Let's skip Sabra, Shatilla and Qana for now) and 500,000 others left wounded, maimed and homeless...... Figure out the math for us -- would you? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Abdulla..... Dam Joos, always have to have the last word, huh AlanH? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Throwing the 1st stone...... EI Sparks posted: "If you threw divine intervention or somehow, assassinated Saddam, his sons who are equally if not more worse will just rise." Abdulla: After seeing the corruption of the Bush gang--and I do mean GANG. George: Insider trading, AWOL from the Texas Nat'l Guard, Marijuana/Cocaine use in college, lying to the American people about Iraq's WMD's--BIG TIME! Neil: $2.8B in S&L losses at the Silverado S&L in Colorado and also taking a $100,000. bribe as a board member of that same Silverado S&L. Jeb: Pregnant, hanging and bulging chads, that kept hundred's of thousands of black and minority votes from being counted in the last presidential election in Florida. I would point my fingers at the Saddam Brady Bunch with great care! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Abdulla....
Re: Throwing the 1st stone...... Abdulla: Solly Papa San! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The squeeky wheel gets the vaseline---like the Paly's do. Abdulla: Too much C-Span or "Live--from the HERITAGE FOUNDATION" special's, fellow! Are you related to Dennis Ross? This AIPAC harlot and ZOA poster boy went to the Middle East to promote peace and all he promoted was Israeli STATE SPONSORED TERRORISM! He now works for an AIPAC funded right wing think tank in DC. Abdulla....
Abdulla.... ISLAM's GOD IS THE GOD OF ABRAHAM ?? JEWISH GOD IS THE GOD OF ABRAHAM ? CHRISTIAN GOD IS THE GOD OF ABRAHAM ? CHRIST IS A PROFIT OF ISLAM?? I only wish we could all live together as the children of GOD in peace and harmony. with respect Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!