You seem to be contradicting yourself, which is fine if you support her position here. Because what the truth about it is, she's too stupid to have a real thought, and just espouses the opposite for cussedness and ornriness.

Validity and correctness aren't necessarily the same thing.
Focusing on the second definition I think.

and:
Possibly either # 2 or 8.
Granted this is all product of personal opinion, so it's completely valid to me, but you may very well consider it wrong.

Gah, forgot you might want this one too

Anywho, there are certainly holes in my logic, but I've had a fever off and on all weekend. We can't expect miracles all the time, can we?

I'm sure the families of the thousands of people that Saddam ordered executed would disagree, but hey, that was an internal matter, it's not like the US moved in and set up shop. But, if Iraq isn't to be allowed to try their own criminals in their own courts, what's the point? The only negative things that I have ever read about his trial/execution concerned incidents at the execution, not the fact that it was carried out.

Kiwi and Firestormalpha:
I meant that while I disagree with her, I think her argument is not inherently stupid, and her opinions don't make her too stupid to have real thought.

The problem is not that Saddam didn't deserve his death. It is that he is, de jure, not a criminal. He hadn't broken any laws. When you are a dictator, you have legal right to order all the deaths you want. So he was executed for being evil, not breaking laws. Meaning that the trial had all the legality of a mob execution.

I'm thinking that mass murder is illegal, no matter what title you may have. I'm sure that any world leader that commits the same type of crime, whether elected or not, would be forced to stand trial. People call for Pres. Bush to stand trial all the time, presumably for war crimes, or for going to war. However, if mass murder is to be considered a non-crime, there are a lot of criminals that should be released, and a lot less need for police forces, both local, and on the global scale. I take this to mean that perhaps the situation in Darfur should also be ignored, since it's the leaders that are involved in it?

Iron Greasel,
How could Saddam have been found guilty if no laws had been broken? Was the trial that biased? Why did he run and hide if he didn't do anything wrong?

[ 05-22-2007, 12:26 PM: Message edited by: NewbietoRPGs ]

Well, the running and hiding regardless of guilt is really understandable. I mean, he had an army coming after him, who wouldn't want to run from an army?

(the above statement does NOT mean that I consider Sadam any less guilty, only that I understand why ANYONE would want to run away from a large well armed force.)

Innocent or not, I'd be hiding from a well armed force looking for me. However, guilt is a strong motivator as well.

Mass murder is only illegal as long as there's a law against it. If you are the supreme and inquestionable leader of a nation, you can give yourself legal right to kill people. If you write the laws, you don't have to break them. Texas has had quite a few people killed (Admittably over a long period of time and usually for a good reason. But it still works as an example.) and no one considers this a crime.

While you can be tried for war crimes, they're not proper crimes in any sense of the word I'm familiar with. They're politics. When you lose a war, you will have to be disposed of. If you can stay in power; repel all invasion, suppress all revolutions; you can commit all the genocide you want. People might call Bush to stand trial, but I doubt he ever will. Only losers get executed over war crimes.