NationStates Jolt Archive

That's right. A trial judge has told Saddam Hussein he was not a dictator. So... what would that make him?

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) -- The chief judge in Saddam Hussein's genocide trial said Thursday that he does not believe Hussein was a dictator.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/14/saddam.trial.ap/index.html

That's right. A trial judge has told Saddam Hussein he was not a dictator. So... what would that make him?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/14/saddam.trial.ap/index.html

To be fair he did allow the population to vote. He was the only candidate mind but at least they had a day out at the polling station.

Didn't Iraq have a legislative body seperate from Saddam's executive branch? Yes, it was subservient to him and largely irrelevant, much like our own, but it existed.

That would make him the head dick, with all his goon squads controlling all the troops, weapons,media,commerce and secret police.

To be fair he did allow the population to vote. He was the only candidate mind but at least they had a day out at the polling station.

Didn't Iraq have a legislative body seperate from Saddam's executive branch? Yes, it was subservient to him and largely irrelevant, much like our own, but it existed.


Subservient branch of legislation, voting that doesn't really count..Yep, sounds like they had the American style of Democracy. Seems our job was done, before we went over there.

What an embarassment it would be if Saddam was found "innocent".

Subservient branch of legislation, voting that doesn't really count..Yep, sounds like they had the American style of Democracy. Seems our job was done, before we went over there.

:rolleyes:

What an embarassment it would be if Saddam was found "innocent".

It'll just mean Dear Leader will say "That's not 'Democracy'" just the way he did when Fatah was so fucking corrupt the Palestinians resorted to electing Hamas.

Subservient branch of legislation, voting that doesn't really count..Yep, sounds like they had the American style of Democracy. Seems our job was done, before we went over there.

As far as I know, voting for someone other than the president doesn't lead to you being tortured and shot while your wife is raped and your house burned down.

Honestly, the US government isn't that bad. It works fairly well given the size of our country.

Heh, best piece of news in a while.

That Saddam trial sure is running along smoothly...

While a judge may have an opinion on Saddam's governatorial style, there could be no doubt in a rational person that he is guilty of crimes against humanity.

Heh, best piece of news in a while.

That Saddam trial sure is running along smoothly...

Yea, I'm suprise the Iraqi people aren't fed up by now and just lynch him.

He may have used this idea, to stop other people who comitted terrible crimes under Saddams command from arguing that "we had to follow orders" in court.

As far as I know, voting for someone other than the president doesn't lead to you being tortured and shot while your wife is raped and your house burned down.

Honestly, the US government isn't that bad. It works fairly well given the size of our country.

Who said any of that? All I said was that we've got a do-nothing Congress that refuses to exercise oversight granting Dubya near-dictatorial powers to commit gross violations of the Constitution as well as engendering within him a sense that he is above the law (that when he violates it it is simply a case of "not using" it.)

With his involvement in Iraq he doesn't have anywhere near the manpower to have the wives of men who vote against him raped. There is however a grass-roots movement to vandalize the property of people who oppose him.

Subservient branch of legislation, voting that doesn't really count..Yep, sounds like they had the American style of Democracy. Seems our job was done, before we went over there.

Well, you have to remember that Bush's own 2000 campaign people pointed out that he's dyslexic, hence the use of words like "subliminable." When he said "bring American-style democracy to Iraq," he meant "bring Iraqi-style democracy to America."

That's right. A trial judge has told Saddam Hussein he was not a dictator. So... what would that make him?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/14/saddam.trial.ap/index.html

To be fair, I think what this judge meant was not "Saddam wasn't a dictator. He was a really nice guy!" but rather, "Saddam did not have the authority of a dictator, and to act as though he did was illegal for him to do."

Well, you have to remember that Bush's own 2000 campaign people pointed out that he's dyslexic, hence the use of words like "subliminable." When he said "bring American-style democracy to Iraq," he meant "bring Iraqi-style democracy to America."


:D hah no kidding.

How can you compare the Iraqi gov under Sadam with the current US gov.
[Iraqi Gov]
Sure they had elections, but as others pointed out, you could only vote for one cadidate. Try to run or vote for another cadidate, and you would be arrested, tortured, and possibly killed. Publicly complain about the "President" or the government's policies, and you would be arrested, tortured, and possibly killed. You notice any repetition here? If you were an Iraqi citizen, you had no rights.
[US Gov]
Multiple cadidates to vote for.
No penalty for voting for the loser candidate.
No penalty for being the loser candidate if you run yourself.
No penalty for questioning or complaining about the President or his policies.
No torture of US citizens.
No arrest and imprisonment of US citizens without a jury trial.

As much as people may not like Bush's policies, he isn't a dictator and can't get away with anything he feels like. Congress and the courts can reign him in any time they feel he has stepped over the line. That wasn't the case with the Iraqi legislative body or it's court system. If a judge or a legislator went against Sadam, they were permanently removed.

Subservient branch of legislation, voting that doesn't really count..Yep, sounds like they had the American style of Democracy. Seems our job was done, before we went over there.
Natch.

How can you compare the Iraqi gov under Sadam with the current US gov.
[Iraqi Gov]
Sure they had elections, but as others pointed out, you could only vote for one cadidate. Try to run or vote for another cadidate, and you would be arrested, tortured, and possibly killed. Publicly complain about the "President" or the government's policies, and you would be arrested, tortured, and possibly killed. You notice any repetition here? If you were an Iraqi citizen, you had no rights.
[US Gov]
Multiple cadidates to vote for.
No penalty for voting for the loser candidate.
No penalty for being the loser candidate if you run yourself.
No penalty for questioning or complaining about the President or his policies.
No torture of US citizens.
No arrest and imprisonment of US citizens without a jury trial.

As much as people may not like Bush's policies, he isn't a dictator and can't get away with anything he feels like. Congress and the courts can reign him in any time they feel he has stepped over the line. That wasn't the case with the Iraqi legislative body or it's court system. If a judge or a legislator went against Sadam, they were permanently removed.

Note that qualifier. We only torture dirty foreigners.