Iraqi Children freed from Prison

Yes, this is great news.

Now do the same in the USA.

While I am not for the DP, I am surely hope you aren't trying to somehow compare the two.

I'm not comparing the two, I am encouraging not to stop fighting for human rights.

Ok good


What about the rights of the people that were killed by said "children" in your article?

nevermind

It is most tragic that their right to live has been taken away. But I strongly believe there is no right to kill in revenge.

Why are you lumping anti-war protestors with people who say that we are TARGETING women and children? Separate your issues and don't be so antagonistic if you want a civil discussion.

Because everytime you hear an antiwar protestor on TV you always hear them talking about how we are purposely targeting women and children. When in reality we are not.

Which channels are you watching then? CNN, the BBC and ITV have reported nothing of the kind...

BBC the interviewed an Iraqi living in the UK who was at an antiwar protest all I heard from her was that we are targeting women and children and there are going to be a lot of civilian casualties. I remember hearing this from her during the first weeks of the war.

The above is what you cite as support for this statement?



Seems that you are exaggerating a bit. Perhaps you may simply have some pre-conceived notion of anti-war protesters, no?

Good. Now they can get those bastards back to work making cheap textiles!!

if you were personally effected by wrongful inprisonment as a child i think you may have a more open mind about it

I believe you misinterpreted my comment which was posted off topic.

LOL!

Amnesty International doesn't seem to have any difficulty

International human rights treaties prohibit anyone under 18 years old at the time of the crime being sentenced to death. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the American Convention on Human Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child all have provisions to this effect. More than 110 countries whose laws still provide for the death penalty for at least some offences have laws specifically excluding the execution of child offenders or may be presumed to exclude such executions by being parties to one or another of the above treaties. A small number of countries, however, continue to execute child offenders.

Seven countries since 1990 are known to have executed prisoners who were under 18 years old at the time of the crime - Congo (Democratic Republic), Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, USA and Yemen. The country which carried out the greatest number of known executions of child offenders was the USA (17 since 1990).

Amnesty International recorded three executions of child offenders in 2001: one in Iran, one in Pakistan and one in the USA.

It's official - the USA is the most barbaric county in the world when it comes to this issue.

Did you spot which widley talked-about-country-of-the-moment wasn't mentioned above?

Uhh maybe because saddam doesn't release those figures, or allow amnesty international inspectors in his country?

Well, we have the figures for the USA, so let's think about them.

I agree as well for the most part.

I don't have time to think about them, I'm busy thinking of their victims.

(and before you label me a conservative jackass who hates kids, you should know I currently have 5 foster kids in my home and I love everyone as if they were my own. Maybe all of you who are so worried about the poor kids being victimized in the US should take action, rather then sit here and write posts whining about the situation)

word up.

No, Preconcieved notions here. I don't have a link because I saw it on BBC24 live stream early in the war. You still up until recently hear liberals like Pelosi and others saying that the US is targeting Women and children.

You heard many saying that when an alleged Allied Missle/bomb went astray and hit that mrket.

NO BLOOD FOR RUGS!

It's all about rugs. Bush just wants to control the Persian Rug industry.

Alright. Know what? I've had it with this kind of crap. Typh, you know I love ya and all, but this shyt is really pissing me OFF.

You people STILL don't get it, do you?

Protest? Here's what THINKING protesters have an issue with: the rest of it. OK! Saddam gone? Clap hands... what's next? Hm? Our "friends" in Saudi? Hm? NK? Congo? Where ELSE will we go, championing human rights? Hm? WHEN will it end? When every bloody dictator is gone from the Earth? OK! Since we are so ever consistent with our policies, since this was about danger to the world, human rights and WMDs and loony dictators... Lets go to it! THere's certainly no shortage of human shredding boxes and folks who enjoy operating them! LET'S GO! There's more than one unstable area on the planet. There's more than a few countries that could benefit from our help.
Let's get them! If these are the reasons, and I am sure they are, well, we gotta be consistent, right?

NEXT. Now the fighting MAY be done. If so? GREAT. ALL FOR IT. Next? Hm? Repercussions? GO on. TELL me there will be none. Diplomatic ( Because it ain't as if the vast majority of the people on this planet are FOR this stuff... coalition of 40 something countries... most of whom coerced, wheedled and cajoled into coming along, OVER the protests of their populations... and why should we listen to THEM, right?), Political, TERRORIST... sure. I'm just being a hysterical sally. FBI probably thought issues leading to 9/11 were hysterical too. Fact is, you, me, NONE of us know how this will all play out in the end- IF there is an end. So ****ing quit the goddamned slamming based on speculation.


Now, here's the other thing: GET. OFF. PROTESTERS. They have an opinion. Valid. They voice it. VALID. They have concerns. VALID. SOme break laws to do it? Civil Disobedience. VALID. We have a LONG history with it here in the home of the ****ing free (not all offers valid, void where prohibited by law). You people deriding the whole group? PISSY, PETULANT AND INVALID and yeah, PARTISAN (worst reason of all). People have statements, people have concerns, people have messages, People have rights to express ALL of these, like it or not. LET THEM. AND RESPECT THEM. ANd DON'T GIVE me the "well, they don't respect me so..." crap. You're so big? ACT LIKE IT. IF you people continue to call these folks "Peaceniks" and "morons", well, DON'T bitch if they call you war mongering baby killing short sighted inconsistent hypocritical dinks. It's all one. And you play the same game.

I'm out. Said my piece. We now return you to your regularly scheduled smug little parlor game.

There are ALWAYS repercussions, max. No matter which road you take you don't escape them. I'll take my chances with the ones that now await us than what we would have faced had we traveled further down the road we were on. Iraq has a great deal of oil wealth, the most powerful country on earth on it's side instead of against it and the tyrant's grip has been broken. I like Iraq's chances a helluva lot better now than they were a month ago.

Diplomatic repercussions? Yeah, I'll bet there will be more than a few after the images from this morning are broadcast around the world. I haven't the slightest doubt that those who so recently opposed us will now find it useful to start mending fences.

I doubt it. I think this piece has it about right. I'd like to agree with you, but faces are at stake. This hasn't been about Iraq itself for at least six months.

Jailed Iraqi children run free as marines roll into Baghdad suburbs
Tue Apr 8,12:30 PM ET

Well, Schroeder has at least started to sing a different tune.

We always hear about the repricussions for going to war with Iraq; but NEVER, not ONCE, have I seen a cute flash site that depicts the terrible fate of Nahle Sabet.

Like Simey, I would love to agree with you and will be DAMNED happy if I am wrong. I do not disagree that Hussein needed to go. I do not dissagree that the chances are better. I simply don't have the faith for a sunset ending to this. For me, it was less about the war than it was about what surrounds it. I see joyous faces on many Iraqis. Good. What about the rest of it? Like it has been said, the military steam roll was the (comparatively) easy part.

Geesh Maxelson, take your own advice. (IE: that last three sentences I seperated.)

What is the deal lately, with this farce that protestors are beyond all criticism and off limits to any and all reproach?

And even more bizarre, that no one can call the vandals and law breakers among them out for it?

There�s something of an obviously hypocritical (to say nothing of shamelessly dishonest) tactic I notice lately, that everyone must �lay off� and treat anyone calling themselves a protestor with kid gloves no matter what -they can say and do whatever they like, not be held accountable for any hypocritical positions or any negative actions any of them take, and that no one can call the ones that act like jackasses, jackasses.

Yet on the same token, it�s paraded as legit to posture as if anyone questioning these people doesn�t have any rights to their own viewpoint. Any time someone does, the not even subtle slight of hand is to paint them as being 'against all rights to protest.'

And of course, no one can ask valid questions of any protestor, such as typhoon. Guess what; his question of those protestors that did say this, and his OP are also VALID.

See how it works?

I have no truk with opinions. NONE. This goes beyond that. I hear so much about the wrongs the protesters commit. And when I hear of college students threatened for thier comment, people breaking into their home and trashing it, what do I hear? "Hey. They asked for it." No one called the vandals out there, either. No calls them unpatriotic, seditious or traitorous.

I am talking RESPECT of viewpoint. I perfectly well respect yours. I agree with yours less than half the time, but I respect it. The critiques I hear are of the ACT OF PROTESTING. "Get a job" is what I hear. "Take a bath you hippy peacenik freak" is what I hear. Seldom is it "I think your wrong, and here's why I think so".

Yes, Crash. I DO see how it works, and it is that which has me angered.

Let's wait until after the St. Petersburg summit. I think that Putin isn't going to be as keen to be in complete opposition to the US as Chirac. I'm not sure about Schroeder.

My concern is that they might try to block the lifting of sanctions. Technically, only the Security Council can do that, which makes it the place where there is real leverage.

In good news, the EU parliament has voted to admit the "Vilnius 10."

A war was the only way that was going to happen.

All we could do is take the path that looks more promising. We have.

I know we're talking about Chirac but just how morally bankrupt is he prepared to be?

Talk about repurcussions. So now can we assume we know your position on the war and the reasoning?

Highly unlikely IMO. There is nothing to be gained by such a move.

Problem is, Typhoon didn't break into anyone's house, yell 'Get a job' (free speech anyway)or anything else. He merely asked a question and you leveled both barrels at him for it.

No, I leveled both barrels at a wide range of folks- a particular brand of folks (as I perceive them). See the first line of the post. Then see the second.

I will ask for a pardon of my expression of anger. I cannot ask for one on my thoughts.

I suppose. I was against unilateral action last fall, and was happy with the coalition that the US put together, but was still worried about the possible outcomes. I'm just sick of the "anti-war" shock sites that I keep getting in e-mail, which only tell half of the story... (talk about hypocracy). Most of all, I'm sick about the lies of how the Iraqi citizens were completely against this action; El Pre$idente's comments were completely and utterly false, on Christanity, his Kurdish friend and (it seems) the entire situation.

Lesson learned on listening to what El Presidente has to say. He's conspiracy theory all the way.
Haven't seen him in a while. Is he still here?

I think it's premature to claim this. As I remember those predictions, they were about ruling Iraq, not conquering it.

Nobody questioned that we could readily conquer Iraq--although many of us feared it would take a terrible toll on those we wish to liberate.

Now we are actually getting to point where El Pre$'s predictions may turn out to be accurate. He's not the only one who's questioned whether or not the US can really get what it wants economically/strategically from true popular rule in Bagdad. Historically, I don't think there can be any question that those ideals seem in open conflict.

But we'll see. If the US tries to rule Iraq, it will be disastrous. If the US lets Iraq find it's own way, there might be some disasters, but they wont' be our disasters. There is also a very real chance that Iraqis will find their own way to something very very positive. We should just be prepared to allow that to happen even if it challenges our historical interests.

I'll give 2 thumbs up to that.