Poll - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld stepped down as

[Alagrl]

How do you justify walking away or turning your back on that.Israels sirvival is in our hands and we are a basic Judeo/Christian nation that supports the state of Israel.More religious crap,but a fact!

Bit before your time I know, but what happened during 1939-41 when the jews were being train loaded to the nazi extermination camps?

In 1938, my son's paternal great-grandfather was suddenly detained in the marketplace in Freiburg im Breisgau. After three weeks, the family located him in Dachau. It took another 3 weeks to bribe the Gestapo to release him and for the father, mother and daugther to be allowed to leave Germany with a legal exit visa -- costing them virtually everything they owned (property, bank assets).

After moving through Switzerland and France, the ONLY country willing to give them refugee status was England. We will be forever grateful that it was the Brits who saw at least part of what was happening and offered sanctuary.

[Doc]

What I don't understand and what I would have preferred to see would have been Saddam taken out of the politicized and volatile situation in Iraq for international trial at The Hague

I would agree with that 100%.

The rationale of BRC&C was that the Iraqi people needed to "see" the trial happen quickly and that any sentence meted out would be implemented quickly. This presumably, would help the Iraqi people bring closure to the "reign of terror" implemented by Saddam. Hence, the US helped the Iraqis write a series of laws that would apply directly to Saddam and his band of merry men. With those laws that were written, there was a specific exclusion for any American being similarly charged of the same types of offenses in Iraq.

Another compelling reason was that the US did not want its own complicity in the so called "war crimes" to be made public. The Administration believed that if the trial were to be held in The Hague, that complicity would be used as part of Saddam's defense.

Whilst the resulting "civil war" was not anticipated or planned for, the current events in Iraq could have also been used by Saddam as some what of an affirmative defense. The legitimate claim could be made that whilst Saddam was engaged in his methods of "internal security" there weren't any civil wars. Iraq was a secular country and the people were generally safe. Therefore, what he did was a necessary evil necessary to control the masses. This would not have resulted in a "not guilty" verdict, but could be taken into consideration during the sentencing phase.

[cookie]

Doc, I love to read your rather objective evaluation (according to MHO).
Nice reading material.
There is only one thing that I don't agree with:

and I believe that history will be just as unkind about our invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.

I believe that the war in Afghanistan was right.
The whole world agreed that there was action needed after the 9/11 disaster and this country was harboring Ossama and his terrorists.
The problem is that they didn't finish the job and went to Iraq. And I agree with you that the invasion in Iraq was a BIG mistake.

[cookie]

Doc, I love to read your rather objective evaluation (according to MHO).
Nice reading material.
There is only one thing that I don't agree with:

and I believe that history will be just as unkind about our invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.

I believe that the war in Afghanistan was right.
The whole world agreed that there was action needed after the 9/11 disaster and this country was harboring Ossama and his terrorists.
The problem is that they didn't finish the job and went to Iraq. And I agree with you that the invasion in Iraq was a BIG mistake.