Saddam captured

[ladysycamore]

Originally posted by jinx
"We caught the wrong guy"

Great article, IMO. I suspect many people feel the same way.

[Torrere]

Originally posted by quzah

"Do you suspect you've been sleeping with the double of your ruthless-leader-of-a-3rd-world-country-husband?"

What if Hussein went out one evening and, uh, didn't want his wife to know about it?

[OnyxCougar]

That links story says Bush acknowledged Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. Can someone post a link to that public acknowledgement?

[elSicomoro]

Here

[OnyxCougar]

Thanks, Syc. So he acknowledged the ties to Al-Qaeda, but no link to the attacks, until the memo we found last week. Got it.

[jinx]

"Despite such assertions, the administration has never proved a prewar link between Saddam and the terrorist network. Instead, officials usually stick to assertions about Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a senior bin Laden associate whom U.S. officials have accused of trying to train terrorists in the use of poison for possible attacks in Europe, running a terrorist haven in northern Iraq an area outside Saddam's control before the war and organizing an attack that killed an American aid executive in Jordan last year.

Indeed, Mr. Bush cited al-Zarqawi to back up his claim of al Qaeda ties to Saddam.

"Al-Zarqawi, al Qaeda operative, was in Baghdad," he said. "

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by OnyxCougar
So he acknowledged the ties to Al-Qaeda, but no link to the attacks, until the memo we found last week.

Which I haven't seen Bush say anything about yet, unless I missed something.

[Radar]

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.

Absolutely false. The Libertarian approach to national defense isn't a "utopian dream". In fact Libertarians seem to be the only people who don't dream of a utopia. We don't promise something for nothing or tell people the government can do everything for everybody. We know the inescapable reality that many don't like to face, that all freedom comes with responsibility.

Not only would a Libertarian approach work, it has worked for hundreds of years. Only when we start military interventionism and take sides on every issue do we make enemies all over the world.

Harry Browne's essay is a thoughtful, intelligent, cogent argument that describes perfectly the folly of getting involved in a complicated web of messy treaties that promise military action. The founding father's and Harry Browne had it right, and those who attempt to use a thinly veiled imperialistic/war mongering attitude by claiming we got into the war for "complex" reasons, are fooling nobody but themselves.

World War I happened after the murder of one man. It never would have happened without military interventionism and America never should have participated in it and had no valid reason to be in it. America violated its neutrality agreement and shipped arms to England. There never even would have been a WWII if America hadn't stuck our noses into WWI.

The U.S. Military has one and only one purpose, and that is to defend American soil and ships from attack. It's not for settling disputes among other nations, providing "stability" in other nations, overthrowing the leadership of other nations that haven't directly attacked america, training the military of other nations, sending humanitarian aid to other nations, be a show of force in other nations, be the muscle of the UN, etc. If the military is used for any of these reasons or any other reason outside defending from a direct attack against America (not American "interests" abroad), it is being used unconstitutionally and is endangering America rather than defending it.

I defy someone to name a war that the US was involved in within the last 100 years that was a valid, constitutional, defense of America other than World War II, which was questionable considering the fact that we provoked Japan. Let me give you a hint...It certainly wasn't Vietnam, Bosnia, Grenada, Iraq (either time), Korea, Panama, anywhere in Africa, etc.

[Griff]

Exactly right Radar. To me the really interesting thing is that the interventionists expect the citizens of of these various backwater countries to welcome our troops and assume they are there for altruistic reasons. Given our track record in Iraq, its amazing any Iraqis who aren't bought and paid for welcomed the invasion.

[Elspode]

Radar said: "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. "

So, logically, it follows that Europe should still be ruled by Nazi Germany, since the United States itself had not been attacked by Hitler when we intervened? The war in Europe was a pre-emptive strike?

Boy, a lot of our grandpas are gonna be pissed when they hear this.

[Radar]

Hitler never would have come to power in the first place if it hadn't been for America's military interventionism in WWI. All of the millions of Jews, Russians, etc. would have lived were it not for America's involvement. England probably would have been speaking German after that war. But definately would have after the second World War. In either case, it doesn't matter. America isn't here to defend England or any country but our own.

"The United States goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy. She is a well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. If the United States took up all foreign affairs, it would become entangled in all the wars of interest and intrigue, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own soul."

-John Quincy Adams

[Kitsune]

Originally posted by Radar
Hitler never would have come to power in the first place if it hadn't been for America's military interventionism in WWI. All of the millions of Jews, Russians, etc. would have lived were it not for America's involvement.

My problem with this line of thought is that it assumes that America, as well as many other countries, did not establish the ties, treaties, and ideals that we already have. We were involved in WWII because of the actions we took in WWI, and just as then, we cannot [easily] remove ourselves from this method. We could not drop everything today and say "we're only defending ourselves" or "we're not going to involve ourselves, anymore" simply because the US is the cornerstone to the world economy and to a lot of world stability. Radar's idea of military inaction would only work today if we hadn't taken the steps we did starting around the year 1910 or so. There is no transition now that is a simple one and possibly there might not be any option for that at all.

[Radar]

Yes, there is a transition. We opt out of every treaty that involves using our military to defend any country but our own. We trade freely with all nations but remain neutral in all conflicts. We close every American military base outside of America and use some of that money to build a working missile defense system.

Countries like Japan & Germany will be given a few years to build and train their own military and we return to being a non-interventionist neutral nation with few enemies if any.

I'd also suggest we resign our membership from the UN unless the UN states that they hold no authority over any sovereign nation including the members of the UN and that they will not attempt to disarm any nation forcebly.

[Kitsune]

Originally posted by Radar
Yes, there is a transition. We opt out of every treaty that involves using our military to defend any country but our own. We trade freely with all nations but remain neutral in all conflicts. We close every American military base outside of America and use some of that money to build a working missile defense system.

I just don't see this happening, not without enormous and widespread repercussions. Our money, our economy, is based on the influence we have over the rest of the world. The US is afraid to change something as simple as the color of the money too much because of the fear that the modification would indicate instability or change. This country, the investments in this country, and the investments this country puts in others are both directly and indirectly related to the widespread control the US and its allies have on the rest of the world. Opting out of every treaty that says our military will assist others would cause such an incredible "run on the banks" that we'd see the worst outflow of money from the US markets we've ever seen. The following international depression from the failure of trade, despite free trade, that would ensue would alone lead to wars.

I'll agree that less US intervention is good, but I don't see complete and total withdrawl happening.

[Radar]

If investments are tied to using our military to defend other countries, those investors will have to look elsewhere. Security is more important. I also don't see out opting out of treaties that promise the use of our military as a sign of instability. I think it would make America MORE stable, and offer more incentive to invest. We would still make non-aggression treaties and trade agreements.

You seem to support a "one world government" and that is a nightmare of unimaginable proportions to me.

While we are in one world, that world is made up of different cultures and countries and it's best this way. Keeping power divided prevents tyrrany. I can't even imagine the tyrrany of a single world government with unlimited powers.