Saddam captured

[Radar]

I'm kinda fuzzy on the details, but as I recall, we didn't obliterate Iraq in GW1 because Iraq agreed to what amounts to an agreement to pull out of Kuwait, under UN conditions. IOW, if you pull out and agree to these conditions, we won't stomp you into paste. Iraq agreed to those conditions, and then reneged. Apperantly, that agreement made Iraq feel obligated to report it's WMD, (although, as stated, those reports were lies.)

We had no valid reason to attack Iraq in 1991, and we still don't. And for the record, the UN has no authority over any sovereign nations. Becoming a member of the UN does not mean you've given up your national sovereignty.

Allow me to quote Harry Browne...

For example, amateur historians remind us impatiently that the reason Iraq must disarm (which no one else is doing) is that Hussein promised to disarm at the end of the Gulf War in 1991.

Of course, they neglect to tell us that the "promise" was made at the point of a gun. You don't "freely" give your money to a mugger when he says, "Your money or your life." Promises and actions that are coerced are morally meaningless.

But citing Hussein's promise isn't the only way history is misused

[OnyxCougar]

Originally posted by Radar


If the UN told America to disarm and said they would send in inspectors from Russia, Cuba, North Korea, Iraq, Lybia, Lebanon, and China into America to go through military bases, the Pentagon, the Whitehouse, hospitals, businesses, and even American homes at 3am without warning, with armed troops supporting them to make sure we got rid of all WMD's, what would you say? What if the people in China didn't like the way Americans were being treated and they pointed to the people unjustly being locked in jail for drug sales or use as the reason? What if China told George W. Bush to step down or they'd attack America? Do you think we should comply? If not, why is it ok to expect the leader of Iraq (equally sovereign as America) to step down or to threaten them? Why is it ok to tell them to disarm and to send inspectors in?

It's ok because it was part of the agreement that Saddam Hussein entered in to.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally posted by Radar
We had no valid reason to attack Iraq in 1991, and we still don't. And for the record, the UN has no authority over any sovereign nations. Becoming a member of the UN does not mean you've given up your national sovereignty.

It may not, but Iraq made an agreement. They agreed to the terms of that agreement, including possible consequences of breaking it. They broke that agreement.

You can't have it both ways, Radar. Either you recognize that you have an obligation to someone or you don't. IF Iraq had said "Screw the UN" from the outset, that's one thing. But they didn't. THEY recognized the UN's ultimatum and responded to it. THEY decided they were to be held accountable to the UN, and THEY made that determination as in their best interests.

So crying that Iraq is sovereign and doesn't have to listen to the UN really doesn't make a difference, if Iraq doesn't exercise that soveriegnty, and enters into an agreement with them.

Edit: And I read your link, but disagree. An agreement made is an agreement, period. "At the point of a gun" or not. We can argue all day about whether it was right for the UN to go beat his ass for invading Kuwait, be whether it was right or wrong, Saddam made an agreement, and then broke it.

The Allies forced the Germans to promise things that could never be delivered. And using force to exact promises from someone like Saddam Hussein creates about as much security as ordering your cat to guard your home. If the demands are unnatural (as expecting a country in the Middle East to disarm certainly is), you can expect a backlash.

So...wait a minute....telling Saddam to report all his WMD is unnatural? He gassed how many Kurds? How many Kurds and other people does he have to kill before he's considered a threat?

If you lived in Iraq, or some other country that had a regime so horrible, so awful as to kill it's own people on a MASSIVE scale, how do you get out? There's no demonstrations, no free speech, no freedoms, there is nothing you can do to get out of this country, or otherwise it would be empty by now. So who do you ask for help?

America may not be the most "right" or even the "best" country to live in, but it is a DAMN sight better than 99% of them. And before you ask, I have lived in Western AND Eastern Europe, including one of those countries that Mr. Brown severely oversimplifies about in this essay. And it IS an oversimplification. WW1 was NOT about one man.

[Radar]

SADDAM WAS FORCED TO SIGN UNDER DURESS!!!

Iraq was attacked without justification in 1991 by America and told at gunpoint to sign a contract. That is not a valid contract. If I hold a gun to your head and make you sign your pink slip over to me, I don't legally own your car.

No contract signed under duress is legally binding.

[Undertoad]

The duress of a "nation" under a cease-fire agreement doesn't count, mudhead.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally posted by Radar
SADDAM WAS FORCED TO SIGN UNDER DURESS!!!

Iraq was attacked without justification in 1991 by America and told at gunpoint to sign a contract. That is not a valid contract. If I hold a gun to your head and make you sign your pink slip over to me, I don't legally own your car.

What part did I miss that says it's ok for Iraq to invade Kuwait?

And also, big letters just mean that you're getting emotional. Or frustrated. Not logical at all.

[Radar]

They were the victims of an unwarranted attack by America (which was also unconstitutional) and told to sign an agreement or else. That does count. If they had started a war with America and we had won the war, it wouldn't count, but they didn't. America illegally attacked Iraq in 1991 and had no legal standing to force them to sign a contract.

No contract signed by Iraq after the unjustified attack by America in 1991 is legitimate or legally binding. Get this through your empty head.

• THE UNITED NATIONS IS NOT THE BOSS OF IRAQ OR ANYONE ELSE!!!
  
• THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS NOT THE BOSS OF IRAQ OR ANYONE ELSE!!!
  
• NEITHER OF THEM HAD A LEGITIMATE REASON TO ATTACK IRAQ IN 1991 OR IN 2003!!!
  
• IRAQ WAS UNDER NO OBLIGATION TO HONOR A CONTRACT THEY SIGNED UNDER DURESS AFTER THEY WERE THE VICTIMS OF AN ATTACK!!!

[Radar]

What part did I miss that says it's ok for Iraq to invade Kuwait?

No, but that's between them. It's not up to America to defend Kuwait or any other nation on earth but America. And the UN holds no authority over any nation on earth. If two countries have a dispute, it's up to those countries to settle their disputes and nobody else.

And also, big letters just mean that you're getting emotional. Or frustrated. Not logical at all.

No, it just means I'm logically trying to get you to read something since it seems you've not been paying much attention to what's happening around you. Perhaps if the words were larger you might pay attention to them and grasp them.

It's logical to assume if the letters are larger than normal, they'll get your attention and you might read them.

[OnyxCougar]

And that article proves what? That one of the terrorists happened to visit Iraq? Guess what? the other 19 were living, training, and working in America. Does that mean America planned the attacks on September 11th?

So again, no amount of stretching will provide a link. The only link between Saddam and Al Queda is a mutual and vocal hatred of each other for decades.

That article indicates that there are multiple links between Iraq and Al-Queda. And it's not the only media source to report this information. Why would the Iraqi's lie about their involvement with Al-Queda if they hate them so much? That doesn't make sense.

Why are you so compelled to shut your eyes to the fact that Atta and other Al-Queda operatives are partially funded by Iraq? Why is it so hard to believe? We have financial links, we have intelligence links, and lord knows what all links that the media doesn't know about that heads of state do.

Saddam Hussein is a compulsive liar, and his regime lied and murdered and committed acts of atrocity. What makes you think he'd NOT fund terrorists?

[juju]

Originally posted by Radar
No, it just means I'm logically trying to get you to read something since it seems you've not been paying much attention to what's happening around you. Perhaps if the words were larger you might pay attention to them and grasp them.

It's logical to assume if the letters are larger than normal, they'll get your attention and you might read them.

It's logical to assume that it makes you look like a moron.

[Radar]

Why are you so compelled to shut your eyes to the fact that Atta and other Al-Queda operatives are partially funded by Iraq?

Why are you trying to see something that isn't there? Why are you trying to stretch so hard to make a link where there is none. Al Queda wasn't financed even partially by Iraq. The fact that a member of Al Queda happened to visit Iraq doesn't in any way mean the attack in America was funded by Iraq.

Why is it so hard to believe?

Because it's false. Iraq and Al Queda expressed a vocal hatred of each other for decades. They were not allies no matter how many straws you grasp at, it won't change the fact that Iraq has no connection with Al Queda other than a mutual hatred..

We have financial links, we have intelligence links, and lord knows what all links that the media doesn't know about that heads of state do.

Wrong, there are no financial links or links of any other kind. There is more to suggest that America had a connection with the Al Queda terrorists than Iraq. Not one shred of evidence has been given to link Iraq to September 11th. Not one. Not one WMD has been found. NOT ONE. And even if they were found, it wouldn't make a difference because America and the UN have no authority to tell them they can't have them.

Saddam Hussein is a compulsive liar,

No more so than George W. Bush who KNOWINGLY lied to the American people about Iraq posing a threat to get support for his unconstitutional and unprovoked attack of terrorist aggression against IRaq.

and his regime lied and murdered and committed acts of atrocity

Which is completely irrelevant. It wouldn't matter if Saddam boiled an Iraqi baby in oil and ate them for dinner every night. It still wouldn't grant the US or the UN the authority to intervene. And Saddam is no more or less a murderer than George W. Bush. Every single person who died as a result of the war that George W. Bush alone started in Iraq is on his head. Every single American, British, Italian, and other "coalition" troop, and every single Iraqi person who was defending their country or who has attacked troops since they invaded is a murder by George W. Bush.

What makes you think he'd NOT fund terrorists?

He DID fund terrorists, but none that attacked America and not one speck of evidence suggest otherwise. Not even a lame report about a secret note Saddam wrote. And you don't attack first and look for evidence to justify your attack afterwards. That's like a cop arresting you and then searching your apartment for a reason to justify the arrest.

The burden of proof rests on the shoulders of George W. Bush and he has failed to provide any evidence that Iraq ever posed a threat to America. And even if he finds something like the piece of crap you're using to grasp at straws, he must show that he had this information BEFORE he attacked.

It's logical to assume that it makes you look like a moron.

I'll have to defer to your many years of experience in looking like a moron. Surely by now you must be an expert.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally posted by Radar


No, it just means I'm logically trying to get you to read something since it seems you've not been paying much attention to what's happening around you. Perhaps if the words were larger you might pay attention to them and grasp them.

It's logical to assume if the letters are larger than normal, they'll get your attention and you might read them.

I read them just fine, thank you. Just because I don't agree with your opinion doesn't mean that I can't read. And I don't appreciate the "empty head" comment, either. I'm not stupid, I just think you're partially wrong.

A person (or country) is only as independant (or sovereign) as it chooses to be.

If I choose to let my mother run my financial affairs, I have to accept the benefits (less hassle) and consequences (possible mismanagement.) Whether you think she can or should is irrelevant.

Iraq chose to accept the agreement with the United Nations, regardless of sovereignty issues. If they hadn't invaded Kuwait, they wouldn't have been under duress to leave.

Iraq accepted the UN's proposal. Iraq agreed to the terms. Therefore, whether you say it should/could/was forced to is completely irrelevant. They did. Now they have to accept the consequences of that agreement. Regardless of how YOU think it should work, that's how it DID work, and what brought us to this unfortunate position.

I agree we shouldn't be the world cops. I have always had a more isolationist viewpoint. Take care of us first. But we can't be completely isolationist and put our head in the sand.

I believe Saddam's regime did have, (and Al-Qaeda continues to have) a gun pointed at us. And I think it was right to disarm the man holding it in our face.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally posted by Radar
Not even a lame report about a secret note Saddam wrote.

It's obvious by this sentence alone you didn't read the posted article. That's not what it said. Should I make it in big print for you?

[quzah]

Q: What's the difference between a terrorist and a USA lead assination of a of a democraticly ellected official (Chile, 9/11 '73) ?
A: Terrorists are bad. Americans are good.

You're right. It is a poor joke.

So in summary, it's ok for the US to knock out (or establish) leaders in other countries whenever the fuck they feel like it, for whatever reason they feel like.

Quzah.

[onetrack]

I sit here and read this thread and am quite amazed at how it has run ... from jubilation at Saddams capture to a diatribe by virtually one person on everything that America has done, that's wrong for the last 240-odd years ...

Here's my .02c worth ...

Radar and his compatriots are idealists, trying to instigate the Utopian dream.
Harry Browns libertarian dissertation on wars is childishly simplistic .. and does not even begin to entertain the complex factors that drew nations into major wars during the 20th century.

The major mistakes of the past 200 or 2000 years cannot be undone, and play a large part in nations and individuals perceived or real grievances or injustices, and their actions that follow on from those beliefs in those grievances or injustices.

The capture of Saddam will have little effect on the war in Iraq.
In fact it will probably increase the amount of guerilla urban warfare.
There are dozens of loosely structured groups in Iraq, consisting of tribal groups, religious groups, or just plain power grabbers, who want to wrest control of the country from anyone they perceive to be in charge .. and they regard all others as enemy to be blown away at every opportunity.
The capture of Saddam will release their previously curtailed energies, into new warfare attempts to gain power.

The Americans have a poor understanding of tribal structure, beliefs, loyalties, and attitudes of the Middle Eastern nations .. as so many have ''invaders'' have before them ..

So-o-o .... ''invasion'', is what the Middle Easterners see, every time a foreign nation appears within their borders .. and the previously warring groups, will unite to repel a common perceived ''enemy'' ..

As soon as that ''enemy'' shows a lack of enthusiam ... or retreats .. they will go back to fighting and killing each other .. as they have done for 2000 years ...........

The best thing that Americans can do in Iraq is pull out as swiftly as possible, before they become bogged down in a war that will rapidly degenerate into a costly refereeing match between multiple warring parties.

The American leaders dream is to be the saviour of the oppressed in all parts of the world .. but the Americans record in foreign countries since WW2 is seen as just one of taking sides, and either instigating more injustices, or adding to those that already exist ... and adding to Americas wealth in the process. Little wonder the Americans are hated so much.

All wars are based on leaders political aspirations .. and none more so than this war in Iraq. The current American leaders are the most devious manipulators of the truth and imagery I have ever seen, and it is frightening to consider what their potential is.
They are master manipulators of the media, with new exposes every day, of stories they have embellished, outright lies they have fabricated, and their greed for power so alarmingly obvious.

I personally think the only reason GWB went to war with Saddam, is that he saw a power grabber more ruthless than himself, and was scared he would be outdone .....

Incidentally .. I an not an Arab, not black, not a member of an oppressed minority .. not a member of a political party .. merely an observant Aussie .. and probably more pertinently ...... a Vietnam Vet ......