Should Saddam be tried at the Hague instead? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 28, 2024, 11:17:45 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  International General Discussion (Moderators: afleitch, Hash)
  Should Saddam be tried at the Hague instead? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Should Saddam be tried at the Hague instead?
#1
yes
 
#2
no
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 31

Author Topic: Should Saddam be tried at the Hague instead?  (Read 3850 times)
afleitch
Moderator
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,860


« on: October 29, 2005, 09:54:50 AM »

Cromwell was unusually 'posthumously' executed, he was dug up in 1661 and given the old hung drawn and quartered treatment.

In Scotland he is not fondly remembered. Charles I was our king too, Scotland was still an independent nation and there was no right to have executed him and then invaded Scotland.
Logged
afleitch
Moderator
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,860


« Reply #1 on: October 29, 2005, 01:46:55 PM »
« Edited: October 29, 2005, 01:53:19 PM by afleitch »


Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's not even close to being accurate except in extremely simplistic terms and even then not very...


I disagree. As history graduate, my simplistic terms though simplistic are fairly accurate. Scotland remained an independent nation until the Act of Union in 1707, we just shared the same monarch from 1603 onwards. Whetever was approved by the English parliament had no effect in Scotland and therefore the execution of Charles I was not approved by any Scots body whatsoever. England therefore not only executed it's own monarch, but a foreign monarch too.

Cromwell had no jurisdiction over Scotland until the invasion after the alliance with the Scottish Covanteers broke down.

EDIT: I also find your dismissive tone slightly offensive.
Logged
afleitch
Moderator
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,860


« Reply #2 on: October 29, 2005, 02:23:31 PM »

The academics of Scottish history in their own opinions are righting wrongs. I know a particular bugbear about the traditional teachings of the English Civil War is that it seems to gloss over anything that happened outside of England (with the exception of Ireland) Even the term English Civil War is misleading. Scottish history is rebuilding itself from a nationalist perspective yes, but at least hasn't resorted to the mind-numbing political correct nonsence that seems to have permeated English history. So while English history (at high school level) wrongly downplays the benefits of Empire, Scottish history revels in it showing the contribution Scotland and Scotsmen made to the structure of the Empire. It also is a bonus becasue it makes Scotland responsible for the British Empire too and shoots the English-hating nationalists in the foot at the same time:)
Logged
afleitch
Moderator
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,860


« Reply #3 on: October 29, 2005, 02:54:19 PM »
« Edited: October 29, 2005, 02:57:07 PM by afleitch »

Oh, I should also add that the amount of attention that goes on slavery is insufficient...

I agree; in particular non-black slaves, who are often neglected, like the million or so white slaves of the Ottoman Empire and the caste system in India.

Oh and I would never read the Daily Hate Mail. I would be letting the gay side down if I did Wink
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.023 seconds with 14 queries.