Saddam captured

According to various officials in Iraq (former exile Chalabi, Kurdish leader Jalal Talabani, Ibrahim Janabi of the Iraqi National Accord), Saddam has been captured in his hometown of Tikrit.

"Volleys of automatic rifle fire echoed across Baghdad as Iraqis drove around town honking their car horns and giving the V for victory sign, witnesses said."

source

[Edit: DNA tests confirm that this is the real one.]

[Edit: Blair has already announced the capture of Saddam]

So! I guess that Bush can checkmate his enemies. How substantial will his popularlity boost be from this victory? How much will this affect the ongoing War in Iraq?

This is a very, very good thing -- the fear that the population has of this man is extreme and his final capture will allow for reconstruction efforts to speed up.

It will also be really interesting to hear what he has to say and even more interesting if he is brought to trial.


But, still, I gotta say the obvious: "You can find one man hiding amoungst twenty-two million people, but you can't find 500 tons of sarin, vx, and mustard gas?"

"Gen. Ricardo Sanchez said members of the Fourth Infantry Division found Saddam hiding in a 'spider hole' about six to eight feet deep."

I wonder if it put the lotion on its skin.

WRT Bush checkmating his enemies, if Hussein's capture is a checkmate it surely should have been anticipated by all the players, and they deserve their new status.

Hillary anticipated it and was all hawkish last Sunday. Her position fits well with her husband's hawkishness when he was in charge.

Lieberman is not hurt IMO and this completes his best week in a long time. I hope it preserves his campaign.

It is so much fun to look at one of the world's major assholes being rudely checked for lice. It is so much fun to see Baghdad residents coming out to the public square to celebrate! This is must-see TV. It's a great contrast to the video a few weeks ago, of people with their hands tied being thrown off of the roof of a three-story building on to the concrete below, of people having their tongues cut out and hands and heads hacked off in public.

Iraqi governing council on Saddam: "He was unrepentant and defiant... he tried to justify his actions."

"Physically and mentally tied but did not feel at any moment apologetic to the Iraqi people or any remorse for the crimes he had committed... he said that the Iraqi people are just a bunch of hoodlums. No remorse for any crimes... the wars against Iran... not even about the Kuwaiti... I think he is sick, you don't believe how sick this person is. A psychologist or psychiatrist should investigate him and check what kind of paranoia he has."

"The 750,000 dollars [found on Saddam] are an insignificant amount compared to what was taken from the Iraqi people."

"[Will there be a change in the timeline of sovereignty?] I don't think it will be postponed... I think it will be earlier... Definitely not later than June next year."

"[Were there military around SH when he was caught?] Two guards, rifies in his hole but he did not use it, there was not one bullet fired. He was in an 8 foot hole and the hole was for only one person... he was living with rats actually."

Story from Fox News with photos of him taken after his capture.

so now what?

we try him for a long list of war crimes? and where do we try him? who sits in judgement? will he be jailed? will he be put to death? is there an international death penalty?

do we torture him until we find out the straight dope on the WOMD's?

or do we just put a bullet in his neck and send his family a bill for the bullet?

Joe Lieberman reaction: "My first reaction? Hallelujah! Praise the Lord!... This is a day of glory for the American military... This is a day of triumph for anyone in the world who cares about human rights and cares about peace."

From the BBC...

Spokeswoman for French President Jacques Chirac

The president is delighted at the arrest of Saddam Hussein.

This is a major event which should strongly contribute to the democratisation and the stabilisation of Iraq, and allow the Iraqis to once more be masters of their destiny in a sovereign Iraq.

German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, in a message to US President George W Bush

It's with great delight that I learned of Saddam Hussein's capture. I congratulate you on this successful operation.

Saddam Hussein caused horrible suffering to his people and the region. I hope the capture will help the international community's effort to rebuild and stabilise Iraq.

You are WAY too much of a Lieberman fan, Toad...you're starting to scare me. :)

Kerry reaction: "This is not a political... uh... I'm excited like every American is that this is the full decapitation of the regime.. I just feel there was a better way to do it. ...I hope we see this as another way to bring the rest of the world to the table... the best military deserves not to be over-extended... there are still great challenges here... bring this now to the world, bring the world to the table and we can transform Iraq together."

"[What about Dean?] In my judgement, those of us who had a way of doing this, but doing it right, had the right course for America."

"Let me just say that I believe very strongly to stand up to Bush and win is someone who has experience in foreign policy who can make the American people confident of giving the American people a way to be safe in the world."

Practically unintelligible poli-speak. I give it a D-minus.

Dean is supposed to be speaking shortly...and Dubya will be on at noon ET.

My wife's reaction:

"It wasn't his fault" and "He'll never get a fair trial, and I think that's sad".
<blockquote>"But... he murdered and tortured hundreds of thousands of people, and appointed his entire family to positions of power... who in turn murdered and tortured hundreds of thousands of people."</blockquote>"No he didn't. Other people did that."


...?

Oh well.

She should take a look at this page.

Originally posted by lumberjim
so now what?

From the Fox story I posted:

Ahmad Chalabi, a member of Iraq's Governing Council, said that Saddam will be put on trial.

"Saddam will stand a public trial so that the Iraqi people will know his crimes," said Chalabi told Al-Iraqiya, a Pentagon-funded TV station.

Sycamore's idea that most people will laugh off: An international court under US and UN authority. Cruel tyrant he may have been, he still deserves a fair trial, and I really don't see that happening in Iraq. Maybe I'm not giving Iraqis enough credit to be impartial, but I dunno...

Out of curiosity, how is he going to be put to trial? Since the US withdrew from The Treaty of Rome and pretty much told the World Court to go fuck itself (you know, because we were afraid that the court could be used to try our own people), are we going to bring him stateside for the trial? Despite the fact that this man deserves to be severely beaten, it'd be nice to have some kind of world-recognized trial that is somewhat fair.

Originally posted by juju
My wife's reaction:
"No he didn't. Other people did that."

I think the real problem is that Dubya will not go the international route -- again.

Saddam will be tried in a US military tribunal, found guilty and put to death. All without the benefit of a real trial. "National Security" will be the excuse Rummy will use.

Let's face it, that's how they do it in Texas.

- Pie

PS: I sincerely hope he is tried in The Hague. That's the only thing that might lend some legitimacy to this whole fiasco.

A trial is partly intended to determine guilt or innocence and there is no question of that here. For those interested in "fairness" I'm not sure there is a "fair" result possible. The "fair" result would be that he gets chopped up into little pieces and that each piece should be given to various Iraqis for them to stamp on. The role of this trial will be to give the Iraqis a sense of how to administer their own situation IMO. I expect they will rule that Hussein should be chopped up into little pieces and stamped on.

Originally posted by Undertoad
The role of this trial will be to give the Iraqis a sense of how to administer their own situation IMO. I expect they will rule that Hussein should be chopped up into little pieces and stamped on.

I'd actually like to see him toured through the streets of each major Iraqi city, shackled to a post or at least held in a cage with very wide bars.

As for the trial, I think it is somewhat important that the US go the International route just because of the importance of seeming fair and allowing the world to have its say on what happens to a man who very much affected the world. This is not so much for the fairness of Saddam as it would be to improve the image the US has with war crimes trials, etc. Since Bush unsigned us from any involvement with the internaional criminal court in 2002, we don't exactly have a good image with other countries who are trying to bring other people to justice for war crimes.

Originally posted by Pie

PS: I sincerely hope he is tried in The Hague. That's the only thing that might lend some legitimacy to this whole fiasco.

[COLOR=indigo]If Milosovic can be tried in the Hague fairly, Hussein can be.

I don't think the bastard DESERVES a fair trial, but if he's going to get one, that's where it will be.

[size=1]Edit: Now if we could only get Bin Laden.....[/size]
[/COLOR]

Originally posted by Undertoad
A trial is partly intended to determine guilt or innocence and there is no question of that here. For those interested in "fairness" I'm not sure there is a "fair" result possible. The "fair" result would be that he gets chopped up into little pieces and that each piece should be given to various Iraqis for them to stamp on. The role of this trial will be to give the Iraqis a sense of how to administer their own situation IMO. I expect they will rule that Hussein should be chopped up into little pieces and stamped on.

What and turn the bastard into a martyr that will be card blanche for every muslim headcase to star jihad.
life in jail,in solitary,give him a lot of time to reflect.

In order to be in compliance with the ICC we would have had to change the US Constitution to allow a force of international cops to override the first and fourth amendments. At any time the ICC feels it has the right and ability to detain and search and arrest US citizens in the US and take them back to Belgium or where-have-you where they can be tried and jailed. And eight months ago they wanted to try Tommy Franks for war crimes.

Fuck that kind of noise, we like the system we already have.

John McCain mentioned a short time ago on Fox News that he thought that Hussein should be tried by the Iraqis and the UN. That sounds reasonable.

I don't think Hussein could be moved out of Iraq at this point...oh sure, it COULD be done. But I think it would lead to a huge backlash by the Iraqis. And a war crimes tribunal wouldn't have to be in The Hague...the one for Rwanda is being held in Tanzania, for example. So, bring the gang over to Iraq...hell, have it in Saddam's hometown to add further insult to injury.

Originally posted by Undertoad
In order to be in compliance with the ICC we would have had to change the US Constitution to allow internationals to override the first and fourth amendments.

Well, we sure didn't have a problem with allowing an outside system to have the ability to override the US Constitution when we gave in to the deals of the World Trade Organization.

...and you're right -- it is a bad thing that the ICC has the ability to do this. But the problem is that by unsigning ourselves from the treaty, we got a good deal of bad press from it. Immensly bad press.

You ever wonder why so many populations in the world tend to dislike us? Its because, for years, we've claimed that we hate people who violate human rights and commit war crimes. We've gone into countries under the banner that we are going in to stop various criminals and help out people. But, for some reason, we tend to ignore a lot of human rights violators and war criminals. You don't see us marching into Saudi Arabia to free those people from the tyranny of a government that punishes its citizens by removing various body parts and torturing them. We also aren't going there to stop a government that we know funded the terrorists that commited the 9/11 acts. We aren't even going in to North Korea to stop a country that is openly threatening others with nuclear war. We also don't even blink when we do business with a communist Asian country that is violently against free speech. And there sure are a lot of ignored countries in Africa where people are murdered by the thousands when some leader tells one tribe to kill the other with any sharp object they can find.

...but we go into Iraq and claim that its because Saddam is a really nasty guy and is hurting a lot of people. This raises suspicion with the world and its why a lot of people yell that we are doing it for monetary gain and not really for justice. Even worse is that because of our rather shady dealings in the past (Hello? We INSTALLED the man we just captured.) the rest of the world tends to think that we actually do commit war crimes and that we do support violating leaders with money and weapons.

And the unsigning that Bush did in 2002, while it saved us from having citizens detained, appeared as proof to the world that we really are cheating bastards and it underlined the notion that we go where we want to, not because we're out for justice, but because we are greedy.

That's why I think that handling Saddam Internationally instead of locally is a good idea and that it might actually repair some of the damage we've done.

One down, one to go!! Bet the 4th ID won't have any trouble getting laid when they get back!!!!

Yeah, we got the bastard, now what do we do to him. The one quote I heard today that I liked came from a Republican congresmen from California, don't ask me who I can't rember his name, or the exact quote, but the gist of it is:

"He's basically bargining for what's going to happen with the rest of his life, and just how long it's going to be."

At least Hitler and his henchman had the good grace to kill themselves. We're going to be stuck with this peice of human garbage for years.

Wonder how many libbies out there would be willing to bond him out. I sometimes think the worse thing we could do to the man would be to sentence him to be chained to Hillary for the rest of his life. Bet suicide would start looking good after a few hours of that.

Originally posted by be-bop


What and turn the bastard into a martyr that will be card blanche for every muslim headcase to star jihad.
life in jail,in solitary,give him a lot of time to reflect.

I'm afraid as long as he's alive those "muslim headcases" will be trying to free him through hijackings and extortion.

Aside-It's a lie. Delayed news. Actually Bush captured Saddam single-handedly, on Thanksgiving day. He's just too modest to take the credit, therefore this elaborate ruse.

Uh, since when did the ICC, the World Court, the UN or any other international institution mean jack shit to America? Do they realize that damn near all their funding and what little power they have is because of America? The Europeans were certainly singing an entirely different tune when we were keeping the Russians off their ass. My, but gratitude certainly has a very short half-life.

We got him. We as in Americans. We got him and we're gonna try him and find him guilty because god knows we got enough evidence to convict the bastard on multiple counts of human rights crimes, murder, theft, crimes against humaity, and a host of others. And if the death penalty is enforced, he'll get strapped to a gurney and a nice clean needle, which is a hell of a lot more humane than the way the Husain crew executed their prisoners. Or maybe we should simply let him loose in the public square and let nature take it's course. Either way, Husain is history.

Originally posted by ThisOleMiss
Uh, since when did the ICC, the World Court, the UN or any other international institution mean jack shit to America?

Last week, when the tariffs on imported steel were dropped by the US after a WTO ruling against them.

I definitely don't think we should have signed onto the ICC, as I think it would have affected our national sovereignty. And let's see how the signatories feel when one of their countrymen is in the crosshairs.

The US needs the rest of the world as much as the rest of the world needs us. Economically, we cannot survive on our own anymore. Historically, we helped start the UN (and for that matter, the League of Nations). And from a humanitarian perspective, we only have this one world. To me, it makes more sense to work with others as much as possible rather than against them.

The UN is by no means perfect...it simply can't be when you have the interests of 200 nations clashing against each other. But it provides a vital forum for countries to air their grievances and to work together as best as possible to take on issues that could affect us all.

Originally posted by ThisOleMiss
Uh, since when did the ICC, the World Court, the UN or any other international institution mean jack shit to America?

Sure meant a lot to us when weapons inspectors were there and we were screaming that we needed to go into Iraq because they were in violation of UN regulations.

...but then, again, the UN meant nothing to us when they said, "Hey, give us more time. You'll be in violation if you invade Iraq prematurely."

That's one perspective. Another perspective is that the UN has almost always failed to address every major world problem, and so if it really is/was a question of the security of the US, solving the problem of national security was easier and more important to do than solving the problem of the UN.

One could argue that it wasn't a problem of national security, but the President AND both houses of Congress agreed that it WAS a problem of national security. On the world scale, the diplomatic scale, it was the position of the US that it WAS a problem of national security.

What do other nations do at that point? We said, basically, "We have a gun pointed at us, and we want the OK to go remove it." An ally of the US would say "We don't like the idea of using force, so we won't help you; but since you think it's a serious problem, we won't stand in your way."

Instead, they basically said "We know about the gun, but we don't think it's loaded. We know you have evidence that it is, but we figure as long as we're looking at the gun it's not going to go off."

Oh yes, and in the back room, the guy with the gun was making outrageous deals with the naysayers... to basically give them the wealth of the country, as long as he controlled it.

Originally posted by Undertoad
What do other nations do at that point? We said, basically, "We have a gun pointed at us, and we want the OK to go remove it."

To what exactly are you referring when you use "gun"?

No matter how we handle Saddam, somebody's gonna get their panties in a wad about it.

Fuck it.

I say, give 'im to the Kurds. They'll know what to do.

It really doesn't matter! On the diplomatic stage, that was and remains the contention of the USA.

But if you want to extend the analogy, the bullets in the gun are WMD, the gun is the intent to use them.

Nobody disputes the fact that there was a gun, they only dispute that there were bullets. Last February Colin Powell described the bullet factories and we found them, and we have plenty of evidence of many more bullet factories since then. We just haven't found the actual cache of bullets.

Some feel the bullets might be in Syria, some people feel they are buried in the sand, and some people feel the bullets were just stories about bullets. I say, if there are bullet factories with trucks of lead and brass and gunpowder, that's proof enough for me, and I don't really need to see an actual bullet.

And frankly, a guy holding a gun is danger enough for me to take action. I don't really care if there are bullets in it.

Originally posted by Undertoad
But if you want to extend the analogy, the bullets in the gun are WMD, the gun is the intent to use them.

Nobody disputes the fact that there was a gun, they only dispute that there were bullets. Last February Colin Powell described the bullet factories and we found them, and we have plenty of evidence of many more bullet factories since then. We just haven't found the actual cache of bullets.

What's your point? We have a shit-load of WMD pointed all over the fucking place. Does anyone come tell us to stop using them? What about the nifty new pox virus we've been working on? The one with 100% kill rate in mice. The one with 100% kill rate in cows? Oh, yeah, sure, that's just for defense, to prepare a cure. Bullshit. It's a weapon. But it's ok, because we're the US of A and we're always right.

America is so two-faced it's sickening.

And as for Saddam... he's fucked. Everyone knows it. To pharaphrase my SO, never ever be considered useful to the USA. They'll stab you in the back when they decide you're no longer useful.

Quzah.

Originally posted by Undertoad
And frankly, a guy holding a gun is danger enough for me to take action. I don't really care if there are bullets in it.

My problem with this is that how the US moves on other countries that are a threat tends not to make sense. Okay, so there might be WMD in Iraq, but the threat of it was so miniscule that we can't even find any WMD or even a trace. Yet, at the same time, we have a country working feverishly to build ICBMs, has threatened us with nukes, and has even launched missiles over Japan to prove that they are a big threat to the world.

Which country to we take issue with? The one where we can find a man hidden in a hole in a ground, but can't find biological or chemical weapons residue.

I do, UT, agree with what you say regarding the UN. They're usually so slow that more people end up suffering while we wait for negotiations.

Originally posted by quzah
But it's ok, because we're the [b]US of A and we're always right. [/B]

Well, yeah. Get yourself a couple plane tickets to your utopia and put your stuff in a shipping container.

Nobody's making you stay in a country you clearly dislike.

Live with it, work to change it, or move on.

That's true Kitsune... NK might even be a worse problem. And it's definitely a worse humanitarian disaster. And there are still other worse hellholes and dictators.

Yeah, I'm actually growing really concerned about NK.

I *think* the only reason we're staying off of them is because China and other surrounding countries seem to be enough of a deterrant to them to prevent them from hitting the button. The only problem is that if it stays that way, North Korea just keeps getting more technology and more power as everyone waits it out.

I think part of the reason that we don't go after North Korea is b/c we don't quite know what to expect from them. We had a pretty good idea of what to expect out of Iraq, but North Korea is like a mystery package.

I agree with Kitsune...who was more of a threat? And maybe I was just living under a rock, but that evidence presented by the US regarding Iraq didn't look very convincing to me. I'm not sure there really was any gunpowder around.

And is there something wrong with complaining about our country? After all, if we don't complain about the problems, we could very well become oblivious to them.

Complain all the heck you want. You can, you know ... that's all part of the "it's a free country" thing, that people take for granted. It's when people express outright hate for their country of origin and/or residence, that I get cranky over it.

I wouldn't consider Quzah's comments as outright hate, here or overall on the Cellar. I just think he's a bit more pessimistic and vocal than most of us on the subject.

But hell, let's ask him.

Quzah, overall, how do you feel about the United States?

More Lieberman from Meet The Press:

Russert: As you know, Governor Dean has surged to the front of the pack in the Democratic race, now called the front-runner. He was endorsed by Al Gore, the man who said three years ago that you should be the person one heartbeat away from the presidency. Why did Al Gore endorse Howard Dean and not you?

Lieberman: Well, you'd have to ask Al Gore that question. From my point of view, the last week has clarified the choice that Democrats and Independents who vote in our primaries have between Howard Dean and me. He will take this country backward to where we were before Bill Clinton transformed our party. I'm going to continue more determined than ever to fight for what's right for my party and my country. That means supporting middle-class tax cuts which he's opposed to, supporting fiscal responsibility, supporting a strong defense. And let's be real specific. On the question that we're celebrating today, Howard Dean throughout this campaign has said he wasn't sure that Saddam really represented a threat to us. At one point he said, "I suppose the Iraqis are better off with Saddam Hussein gone." I would say this, and this is a choice the voters have to make in the primaries. If Howard Dean had his way, Saddam Hussein would be power today, not in prison.

Ouch, that's gotta hurt!

Enlighten me, UT...this is supposed to hurt Dean? It sounds to me like Lieberman is desperate to inject some energy into his campaign, so he does what he's done best recently: attack Howard Dean.

Originally posted by wolf
Live with it, work to change it, or move on.

Oh, I see, "Live with it" is your way of saying shut up, you don't get an opintion?
Second, if America can't even have its presidential ellections held accurately, *I* am supposed to change it on my own? Riiiight. The entire state of Florida couldn't change it. Magicly I myself can?

Quzah.

Originally posted by sycamore
I think part of the reason that we don't go after North Korea is b/c we don't quite know what to expect from them. We had a pretty good idea of what to expect out of Iraq, but North Korea is like a mystery package.

Let me shatter your illusions and put it out there nice and clear for you: North Korea has no oil.

Quzah.

Neither does the former Yugoslavia, but we eventually went there.

Originally posted by sycamore
I wouldn't consider Quzah's comments as outright hate, here or overall on the Cellar. I just think he's a bit more pessimistic and vocal than most of us on the subject.

But hell, let's ask him.

Quzah, overall, how do you feel about the United States?

Well politics aside, it's not a bad place to live. The health care system...oh wait, we don't have one. It's mainly the all the two-faced politics I can't stand. How we get all holier-than-thou and say we're "liberating" countries when it's all bullshit. We care about democracy except when we don't like elected leader. (Chile anyone?) It's that America I don't like.

People wonder why the rest of the world doesn't like America, it's not hard to figure out. We doll out punnishment on whoever we please and expect everyone to say, "Thank you sir, I"ll have another."

Politics aside, I have a pretty good life. If you don't count the sending of my job to India...

Quzah.

We could put it another way Syc. From N.Z.Bear:

During the buildup to the war, and since, many who opposed the war declared it an "illegal" action and a violation of international law.

Now that he has been found to be alive, I'd ask this to those who considered this an illegitimate war: will you now stand up and demand that Hussein be placed back in power? He was, after all, the "legal" ruler of Iraq.

Osama who?

Quzah.

I don't think the war was necessarily illegal. The wording of the various UN resolutions gives the US enough justification, IMO.

So, no, I don't think Hussein should be returned to power.

No health care system in America?! This is the only country that is truly capable of separating twins that are conjoined at the head! Bring your conjoined twins right here!

If Howard Dean had his way, Saddam Hussein would be power today, not in prison.

And this would affect me, how?

It would increase the probability of a suitcase nuke being detonated in a major city near you, and at least markedly slow down any transformation of the Arab world into something half-decent.

Especially if THIS turns out to have legs:

Terrorist behind September 11 strike was trained by Saddam

Iraq's coalition government claims that it has uncovered documentary proof that Mohammed Atta, the al-Qaeda mastermind of the September 11 attacks against the US, was trained in Baghdad by Abu Nidal, the notorious Palestinian terrorist.

Details of Atta's visit to the Iraqi capital in the summer of 2001, just weeks before he launched the most devastating terrorist attack in US history, are contained in a top secret memo written to Saddam Hussein, the then Iraqi president, by Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti, the former head of the Iraqi Intelligence Service.

The handwritten memo, a copy of which has been obtained exclusively by the Telegraph, is dated July 1, 2001 and provides a short resume of a three-day "work programme" Atta had undertaken at Abu Nidal's base in Baghdad.

In the memo, Habbush reports that Atta "displayed extraordinary effort" and demonstrated his ability to lead the team that would be "responsible for attacking the targets that we have agreed to destroy".

The second part of the memo, which is headed "Niger Shipment", contains a report about an unspecified shipment - believed to be uranium - that it says has been transported to Iraq via Libya and Syria.

...but it's probably just a fake. I mean, handwritten? Come on. And Niger? Too much a coincidence, too convenient...

We'll see more, I guess, if Hussein opens up a bit before his trial.

So will they take him to Cuba and "debrief" him?

No, worse - they'll turn him over to the Iraqis.

All I could think after I heard this on KYW at 7AM and I was glancing at the Inquirer and the NY Times before I went out was, "damn I bet newspapers hate it when stuff like this happens overnight!"

Originally posted by sycamore

Sycamore's idea that most people will laugh off: An international court under US and UN authority. Cruel tyrant he may have been, he still deserves a fair trial, and I really don't see that happening in Iraq. Maybe I'm not giving Iraqis enough credit to be impartial, but I dunno...

Fuck what Saddam deserves. Everybody else deserves a public accounting for what he's done over the years. For the sake of history, and for the sake of everybody who died under his regime, and for the sake of all the blood and cash that was spilled to bring him in. While a quick bullet through the head would have a certain visceral appeal (says the capital punishment opponent), I don't think it's the right way to go.

On Saddam's trial:

Should probably be held in neutral territory. In Iraq, it'll draw partisans and terrorists like flies and any tribunal will draw hard-to-dismiss accusations of being controlled by the US. In the US, just as bad. Hold it in Europe (outside the UK and Spain) and the accusations will be a lot easier to dismiss.

Hmm...how about Nuremberg?


On the US health care system: So what's the waiting period for non-life-critical surgery in those socialized systems? Several years?

Originally posted by Undertoad
No health care system in America?! This is the only country that is truly capable of separating twins that are conjoined at the head! Bring your conjoined twins right here!

Sure there's healthcare. If you can afford it.

Quzah.

Steve, to deny Saddam Hussein a fair trial is a slap in the face to human rights in general, IMO. I think he deserves the chance to face his accusers, no matter how evil he is.

Originally posted by russotto
On the US health care system: So what's the waiting period for non-life-critical surgery in those socialized systems? Several years?

In Canada, it seems to depend on what type of surgery you need. I've seen 6 months for a hernia, over a year for a knee or hip replacement.

Hey all,
Just read the news n all...
I reckon this whole thing does not change much in reality. In politics I think it looks quite rosey, but does this make the world a better and safer place? whats the point? The capture of Saddam does not justify the war and won't solve any wars to come.

It makes a difference to Iraq's people. It changes their perception of their security and future. But no, it doesn't justify anything or prevent future wars anywhere but possibly Iraq. That, we'll never know.

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
It makes a difference to Iraq's people. It changes their perception of their security and future. But no, it doesn't justify anything or prevent future wars anywhere but possibly Iraq. That, we'll never know.

it does make a difference, a huge difference. but look at history, the middle east has been in one war (civil or not) or another for ions. unfortunately, there will always be battles and wars over god and allah. that's just the way they see it. too bad. :blunt: of course there are other reasons too, but they always seem to bring allah and all that into it.

Originally posted by russotto
On the US health care system: So what's the waiting period for non-life-critical surgery in those socialized systems? Several years?

Among the various specialties, the shortest total waits were for cancer surgery (6.1 weeks), cancer radiation (8.1 weeks) and general surgery (10.3 weeks), while patients waited longest for orthopedic surgery (32.2 weeks), eye treatment (30 weeks) and plastic surgery (28.6 weeks).

Getting diagnosed for a problem in the first place also proved to be more burdensome for Canadians, according to the survey.

The median wait for an ultrasound was 3.6 weeks; for computed tomography (a CT scan) it was 5.5 weeks; and for magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) it was 12.7 weeks.

The above is from an article in cnews regarding the Canadian Healthcare system.

32 week wait for Orthopedic surgery? That's longer than it takes most broken bones to heal, people. See something wrong there? The waiting periods for diagnostic imaging are equally horrifying ... you can be dead before your appointment to have a head CT to determine if you are stroking out ... this is NOT progress. This is not adequate patient care by any stretch of the imagination.

You can get emergency treatment in the United States whether or not you have insurance coverage. You can have these diagnostic procedures performed. You do not have to wait three to six months for an appointment.

People with low/no incomes qualify for medical assistance, which is many cases is better coverage than a lot of paid iinsurance plans. (I know that the mental health coverage for PA Medical Assistance Subscribers offers more benefit days than equivalent private plans, and I'm told by more than a few patients that the medical coverage portion is good as well.)

It will be relevent because, even if Saddam was not actively aiding the Iraqi Resistance, he was a figurehead to rally around (well, other than God).

1) Who gets the reward for providing a tip that lead to Saddam's capture?

2) The only serious crime Saddam is really wanted for against Americans was his treatment of POWs during the Kuwait Liberation war. However that trial has already concluded. The courts ruled against Iraq, and ordered a large repairation to the victims. The only reason that court ruling has been stifled - the George Jr administration outrightly refuses to let those victims receive their just compensation.

3) If the US has no claims nor jurisdiction against Saddam, then Saddam must be tried either in a World Court, in Iraq, or in some other Arab nation (Iran or Kuwait). In a similar case, Spain tried to put Pinochet on trial for the murder of Spanish citizens when this American supported dictator did same as Saddam to his Chilean citizens and foreign nationals.

4) Only way the US can hold Saddam is as a POW. But the US never declared war. How can one have a prisoner of war when no war was declared - legally justified either by US or international law. Just another problem with invading another nation when the UN did not sanction such action.

Point three is very unlikely for many reasons. One, the current US administration treats Iraq as a prize and does not permit other nations any access to the spoils. Saddam being one of the spoils. Second, the current US administration openly refuses to support or trust a World Court. Submitting Saddam to The Hague might mean the US, by action, falls under the jurisdiction of that court. Third, if Saddam is as evil as portrayed by the current US administration, then the death penalty is a defacto necessity. However the world court (I believe) does not support a death penalty.

Point 4 is a serious legal issue. We hold those non-persons in Guantanimo because there is no legal justificaton to hold them. How then can Saddam be held - legally? Currently Saddam is being called a POW even though legally that cannot be.

The entire resolution to these questions may be found in another president (and President) - Noriega. IOW details of how Noriega is held in prision in the US may need be re reported due to relevance.

So do we put Saddam in prision with Noriega? Do we hold him in America? Do we take him to TX so that he can be executed using TX justice (let Saddam's lawyer sleep through the trial since the verdict is preordained)?

I believe this administration views the law only as an inconvience. I believe they have already ordained his execution. It would only hurt US approval ratings throughout most of the world. But this administration does not care. US opinion ratings have dropped from 60 and 80% to less than 15% and mostly in single digit percent. IOW I believe it is only a matter of time before this administration executes Saddam - either legally or by some prision accident.

Originally posted by sycamore
Steve, to deny Saddam Hussein a fair trial is a slap in the face to human rights in general, IMO. I think he deserves the chance to face his accusers, no matter how evil he is.

Oh yeah, I agree. Rereading my post I was not clear on that point: I want him to have a nice trial. (Say, Nuremberg-like.) I just think it's more important to have it for everybody else's sake than for Saddam's.

tw, for point one, I read (sorry I forgot which site) that they said it was highly unlikely it would be collected because the intelligence used to find him was gained through "hostile interrogation."

I, for one, welcome our new Saddam-killing overlords.

Been spending too much time on Fark, sorry.

tw wrote:

If the US has no claims nor jurisdiction against Saddam, then Saddam must be tried either in a World Court, in Iraq, or in some other Arab nation (Iran or Kuwait).

Iran, my friend, is NOT an Arab nation.

tw, the Iraqis get him and they get to put him on trial.

The US does have many beefs with Saddam beyond POWs, even if he is your personal hero. For instance, he tried to have Bush Sr. assassinated. Despite my feelings about Bush Sr. I do think that's appalling behavior.

He is also connected to the 1993 WTC bombing and the funding of much terrorism.

The Iraqis get to try him and it will be incredible for them. Here is a guy who had all the school textbooks altered to portray him as basically a God -- and crushed the will of the people through killing and terror. They say some of the schoolkids still revere him and don't understand. The trial will inform their society.

The Arab world is stunned that he didn't go down fighting. The Palestinians are furious that their big hero turned out to be a weasel.

Saddam being caught means absolutely NOTHING. It's not an accomplishment, and it's nothing to be proud of. George W. Bush violated the Constitution, launched an unprovoked, unwarranted, and cowardly attack against a country that never posed a threat to America, never attacked America, never trained, harbored, or funded those who did attack America, and had no connection with any groups who did. Those who invaded Iraq are traitors who have violated their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. George W. Bush is the largest enemy of the Constitution and America and is more dangerous to America and the world, than Saddam and Bin Laden combined will ever be. Anti-American assholes who supported the illegal war in Iraq are cheering over his capture like the trained little monkeys they are. Saddam is a scumbag and a murderer, but so is Bush. And Bush took our once proud military and turned them into a bunch of cheap thugs and hired killers who endanger America and the world rather than secure peace and defend it.

This is all more rhetoric in an attempt to get re-elected, but it just won't happen. Bush will be voted out of office assuming he lives to election day. He's got as much chance of being elected as OJ Simpson and he's killed far more people than OJ even thought of killing. The traitors (Bush Supporters) are having a party today, but I will be having one in a year when we remove the biggest threat to America from office. I hope the traitors (Bush Supporters) live in shame for the rest of their lives but odds are they're too stupid to realize they have anything to be ashamed of.

The Iraqi government approved a new Constitution last week that doesn't include the death penalty. The American government captured him after this and will turn Saddam over to the Iraqi court so he won't get the death penalty.

Radar wrote:

Saddam being caught means absolutely NOTHING.

Who exactly are you speaking for?

I'm speaking for America and for the Libertarian Party. America has no justification what-so-ever to attack Iraq in 1991 or in 2003. It wouldn't matter if Saddam had a million nukes, and had murdered 300 million women and children by skinning them alive and boiling them in oil. That still doesn't give America the authority to get involved. The U.S. Government may only do what is specifically listed in the Constitution and NOTHING else. That includes STARTING wars with a DEFENSIVE military against countries that posed no threat, never attacked America, never helped anyone else to attack America, etc.

Those who support the war in Iraq are against everything America stands for. And showing a lame photo of a happy Iraqi doesn't change that. Every single person killed in Iraq rests on George W. Bush's head. Every American, British, Italian, Iraqi, etc. that died were killed because George W. Bush violated the Constitution and started an unprovoked war.

The authority of America ends where America's borders end.

Originally posted by tw
3) If the US has no claims nor jurisdiction against Saddam, then Saddam must be tried either in a World Court, in Iraq, or in some other Arab nation (Iran or Kuwait).

4) Only way the US can hold Saddam is as a POW. But the US never declared war. How can one have a prisoner of war when no war was declared - legally justified either by US or international law. Just another problem with invading another nation when the UN did not sanction such action.

I'm going to take a guess and, just by listening to the press conferences, say that we didn't really expect to capture him alive. All these years we've been bombing buildings and shooting at taxis in the hopes that we'd get him and now, after no shot was fired, we have him.

...and we have no idea what to do with him. We can't take him to the World Court and I don't think we can put him on trial locally without outrage from the international community. Outside of more embarassing health exams aired on television, I think we're going to question him a lot and allow him to spend some time thinking about what he has done in some undisclosed jail cell.

Originally posted by Radar
I'm speaking for America and for the Libertarian Party. America has no justification what-so-ever to attack Iraq in 1991 or in 2003.

...

The authority of America ends where America's borders end.

Radar -- I'm curious, what wars in the past 100 years should we have had any involvement in, then?

I agree with everything that Radar has said.

The capture of Saddam means nothing more than that the US troops might get to go home sooner.

The US should never have been involved in the first place.

Oh and Kitsune: None.

Not a SINGLE ONE.

Not even WWII. Japan attacked because they felt that war was innevitable because the US was showing itself as an ally against the Axis.

Can you honestly tell me that not a single American being killed in a war in the past 100 years would have been a BAD thing?

World War II (American soil was attacked although we provoked the Japanese by cutting off their oil supply and other trade embargos), and Afghanistan (American soil was attacked). Although without America's military interventionism in World War I, Hitler never would have come to power and there never would have been a World War II, but that's another story. And Afghanistan would most likely have been avoided if our military had been in America instead of being spread over the globe like the Roman or English Empires pissing off everyone else with our bullying and muscle flexing.

The Constitution defines our military to be used for the DEFENSE of American soil and ships. DEFENSE never includes starting unprovoked wars, using our military to defend other countries, humanitarian aid missions, training other militaries, peace keeping missions, etc.

Radar:

WWII - Do you mean the Japanese or the UBoat attack?
You see the UBoat attacked a ship carrying ammo and supplies...and people. US was already involved in a war by helping UK.

Afghanistan? Tell me...how did Afghanistan, the place where their idea of advanced technology is an AM radio attack US soil? 911? Thats hardly "Afghanistan". But of course we all know that 911 certainly wouldn't have happened if US hadn't gotten itself set up as the big bully of the middle east.

Honestly, Radar, if you ran America there wouldn't be an America. We would have been destroyed decades ago by the very people that you so desperately want to ignore.

Originally posted by Beestie
Honestly, Radar, if you ran America there wouldn't be an America. We would have been destroyed decades ago by the very people that you so desperately want to ignore.

Like who?

Give me a break.

Look at Australia. Who has initated terrorist action against them latley?

NOBODY.

Do you know why?

WWII - Do you mean the Japanese or the UBoat attack?

The Japanese. The U-Boat attack was our BS excuse to get involved in WWI. America violated our neutrality agreement and was sending arms to England in the Lucitania (A cruise ship that had been converted from a war ship) and was sunk. Edward Mandal House pushed us into WWI.

The Japanese attacked us because we cut off their oil supply and put other trade embargos on them. They attacked in retaliation and we knew they were coming (we moved all of our expensive aircraft carriers out to sea on "exercises" on December 6th, 1941 so only the old and less expensive ships were attacked...see rainbow 5)

Afghanistan?

Al Queda was responsible for attacking us, and Afghanistan (which was ruled by the Taliban) harbored and protected them. They stood in our way rather than turning over the criminals who blew up the WTC on 9/11. So yes, the attack in Afghanistan was justified, but was a failure because we didn't get Bin Laden. This was a major reason in why Bush violated the Constitution and international law by attacking Iraq. He wanted to take attention away from his MANY failures as a president including his failure to get Bin Laden.

Honestly, Radar, if you ran America there wouldn't be an America. We would have been destroyed decades ago by the very people that you so desperately want to ignore.

Please. If I ran America, we'd be more free, pay no income taxes, have a DEFENSIVE military, be liked throughout the world with hardly any enemies if any, we'd be more prosperous, better educated, etc. The elderly, poor, and sick would have more assistance from than they do now, we'd have affordable healthcare, lower unemployment, less people in jail, etc.

America would be secure, strong, happy, successful, and FREE.

Radar. Wouldn't you say that the fact that Japan attacked us during WWII was because of the trade embargo which can be considered as an act of war.

I do not think that the US was right to attack Afghanistan. There is still no 100% proof that it was Al Quada who was responsible for the attack nor is there any proof that the Taliban fully supported the attack. I hate Afghanistan with a passion, I think it's a shithole and inhabited by cruel, savage and brutal people. Still I don't think the US had a right to attack them based on suspicion.

Finally, I think it's fair to say that there wouldn't have been a 911 if not for all the previous US interventions in the middle east.

Please. If I ran America, we'd be more free, pay no income taxes, have a DEFENSIVE military, be liked throughout the world with hardly any enemies if any, we'd be more prosperous, better educated, etc. The elderly, poor, and sick would have more assistance from than they do now, we'd have affordable healthcare, lower unemployment, less people in jail, etc.

Lose 30 pounds in three days!

Work from home and make $150,000/year stuffing envelopes!

I bought 700 houses with NO MONEY DOWN!

FREE sex with bikini babes!!

All this and much, much more if only you elect ME!!

:rolleyes:

Originally posted by FileNotFound
Look at Australia. Who has initated terrorist action against them latley?

NOBODY.

Do you know why?

The massive and horrible nightclub bombing attack in Bali, engineered by al Qaeda, was actually an attack on the hundreds of Australian tourists dancing and drinking there. It may have been a response to the Aussie's handling of East Timor. They struck in Bali and not in Australia directly because Indonesia had a poor security infrastructure.



:p

Radar. Wouldn't you say that the fact that Japan attacked us during WWII was because of the trade embargo which can be considered as an act of war.

I've already said they attacked us in retaliation for our actions, but the trade embargos were a result of Japan murdering millions and millions of Chinese people (far more than the number of Russian and Jewish deaths from WWII combined) but America was wrong to make those embargos. We should have refused to trade with them ourselves, but we cut off their oil from Dutch suppliers so there was some justification for their attack.

Finally, I think it's fair to say that there wouldn't have been a 911 if not for all the previous US interventions in the middle east.

I totally agree with that statement, but disagree on the this one...

There is still no 100% proof that it was Al Quada who was responsible for the attack nor is there any proof that the Taliban fully supported the attack.

Actually there is 100% proof that those who blew up the WTC were members of Al Queda. Some of it was in their own suicide notes left behind, and their ID's. Although 17 of the 19 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia, and we sure didn't attack them.

The Taliban may or may not have agreed with the attack on the WTC, but that is irrelevant. We asked them to turn over Al Queda and they refused, so they were harboring criminals which makes them criminals.

If the American military was doing their ONLY job of defending AMERICA instead of being a huge show of force around the world pissing everyone else off with our military interventionism we never would have had a September 11th attack. In a way all of them died as a result of the foreign policy choices of the Republicans and Democrats.

And the worst part is we have a cowardly, ignorant, traitor in the oval office trying to whip the American public into a frenzy to get support for his own terrorist actions. He's made government larger, costlier, and more intrusive than ever before. He created the unconstitutional "Homeland Security" department which is nothing but a department to spy on Americans.

If the "Homeland Security" department is supposed to defend our homeland (which sounds very close to the fatherland), what's our military for? Defending the Empire?

Lose 30 pounds in three days!

Work from home and make $150,000/year stuffing envelopes!

I bought 700 houses with NO MONEY DOWN!

FREE sex with bikini babes!!

All this and much, much more if only you elect ME!!

Those seem like unrealistic promises, while all of mine are solid, easily obtained, genuinely possible plans. We had everything I've said in the past, but lost it thanks to Republicans and Democrats. All of what I've said can be backed up by simply educating yourself. Start with the Libertarian Platform, and then read The Great Libertarian Offer by Harry Browne, Restoring The American Dream by Robert J. Ringer, and others.

And I think Australia was a poor example. Switzerland would be a better one. They've been surrounded by war for more than 100 years but haven't been attacked? Why? Because they've got a powerful military, a well-armed general population, they always remain neutral, and never practice military interventionism. That and they've got most of the secret wealth of world leaders stored there, and rigged to blow up and be buried in mountains of rubble if someone attacks.

Here's a nice article for you to read...


They Didn't Attack Switzerland

Originally posted by Undertoad



:p

To use your very own idiotic picture on you:

From the BBC:
Bali was chosen "because it was frequented by Americans and their associates", Ali Imron has said. He quoted Imam Samudra as saying it was part of a jihad to "defend the people of Afghanistan from America".

In fact, more Australians and Indonesians would die than Americans, prompting speculation that the plotters were poorly informed, or orchestrated by other people still at large.

BBC Link

Owned you say?

Radar, I think you might find it interesting that "Homeland Security" translates to "KGB" in Russian.

KGB!=CIA.

Main goal of the KGB was to preserve the regime. NOT to protect the people.

Just always found it funny.

It is helpfully instructional to see the Libertarians, self-proclaimed "friends of liberty":

- So completely horrified by the liberation of millions upon millions of people
- Rejecting the hope of liberation of an entire region of the world
- Advancing the notion that a nation's sovereignty can be established and maintained by torture, mass killing, and bogus elections
- Blithely and conveniently ignorant that free trade really requires complicated involvement with the rest of the world, who may not agree with our ideas

One might guess that guys like Radar really prefer to be contrarian in all cases, and that it's really a personality problem more than a coherent political philosophy.

Yah, bingo.

Libertarians are about protecting the LIBERTY of the US. NOT the world.

It is NOT our RIGHT to 'liberate' other nations. End of story.

Libertarians do not support oppression or involvement in foreign affairs.

In other words: We may not like the way Saddam treats his people, but it's not our place to get involved.

That’s how freedom works you see. If we attacked Iraq, killed Saddam and freed the Iraqi people, would they really be free or would we have suddenly made ourselves the world ‘bully’ who forces everyone to play by ‘his’ rules?

Let's go through Undertoads BS one point at a time...

So completely horrified by the liberation of millions upon millions of people

Neither I, nor any other Libertarian that I know is horrified about any country being "liberated" or experiencing freedom. We are horrified at the misuse of our military to START unprovoked wars and to intervene in the affairs of other nations. I love how the idiots who support this war try to turn it around and suggest we don't support freedom if we don't support the American military violating the Constitution. I wish the Iraqi people all the best in getting their freedom as long as it doesn't entail the US using our military for anything other than defending America from attack which Iraq never did.

Rejecting the hope of liberation of an entire region of the world

Bullshit again. I HOPE all regions find freedom, but again, that doesn't mean it's appropriate for America to send our military to make it happen. They must earn their own freedom. America isn't here to "liberate" anyone. And for the record, the people of Iraq are no better off now than they were with Saddam.

Advancing the notion that a nation's sovereignty can be established and maintained by torture, mass killing, and bogus elections

It's worked pretty well in America. And it's pretty stupid to claim a country has no sovereignty if they don't have a government that we approve of. America has no authority beyond our own borders and no other country must answer to us. Even if they are run by a dictator. All governments including dicatorships get their power from the consent of the governed. If the people of Iraq truly wanted to be "liberated" they could have beaten Saddam and his supporters and won thier liberation on their own. There are many examples of governments being overrun with people even when those governments had superior arms.

Blithely and conveniently ignorant that free trade really requires complicated involvement with the rest of the world, who may not agree with our ideas

This is laughable. First off we don't have free trade. And Free trade doesn't require any complicated involvements with the rest of the world at all. Only an idiot who knows literally NOTHING about trade would make such a ludicrous claim.

Free trade means just that. We trade freely with all countries, but don't make complicated treaties that involve using our military. If someone wants to trade with us and we want to trade with them, we're free to do so. The founders were EXTREMELY clear on their intent to NEVER use the military to defend any nation but our own, but to freely trade, communicate, and make non-aggression treaties with others. Free trade does not require any promise of the use of our military and only a fool would claim it does.

I'm not being a contrarian at all. If I seem like my ideas are always contrary to yours it's because yours are contrary to reality, logic, and common sense.

I'll ask this: why do we, The United States, go to other countries to liberate them? Are we really the police of the world, out to free populations from tyrannical governments? Do we involve ourselves in wars because we cannot stand to see people opressed?

Or are we really just in it because it is in our interest? For security?
Maybe only for global stabilization?

Or just financial interests?

The Excuse:
We cannot stand to see people opressed.

The Reasons:
Because it is in our interest. For security.
Financial interests.

I know exactly what Ls support, FNF; I was one of 'em, and in a big way.

The other way that freedom works is that free countries typically do not attack each other. And so, a more free middle east would be a huge gigantic boon to the security of the US.

The war itself was not all that costly, killed about a hundredth of the number of people Saddam himself killed, and was done by an all-volunteer military. What's the big effing deal?

The "reconstruction" will be very costly, that's the part you should oppose I'd expect.

It is NOT our RIGHT to 'liberate' other nations. End of story.

End of story for you, perhaps.

We didn't invade Iraq to liberate it. We invaded it because we felt threatened by it (Saddam). The threat, real or perceived, has been neutralized.

I think feeling threatened is as good a justification to attack as any. We might disagree on whether or not we SHOULD have felt threatened by Iraq but I cannot reasonably entertain the notion that we should ignore a mounting threat.

The Cuban missle crisis is a classic example. Under your theory, those missles would still be there or they would have hit their targets long ago. Either way, we were RIGHT in forcing the USSR to back down. We would have invaded had they not. I suppose you would have a problem with that too.

Originally posted by Undertoad
The war itself was not all that costly...

86 Billion

Cost of the planned mission to Mars is about 70.

Now don't get me wrong. But frankly I'd much rather see the US go to Mars, not lose a single man(hopefully), make amazing scientific discoveries and help mankind through science by finally tackling the "final frontier".

But that’s just me..

Originally posted by Beestie
The Cuban missle crisis is a classic example. Under your theory, those missles would still be there or they would have hit their targets long ago.

The difference with the Cuban Missile Crisis is, however, that we had proof that missiles were there. We had satellite photos showing them.

We went into Iraq because a general showed CG images of trailers with test tubes and bunsen burners in them.

We didn't invade Iraq to liberate it. We invaded it because we felt threatened by it (Saddam). The threat, real or perceived, has been neutralized.

Wrong, we attacked because Iraq was NOT a threat. Notice we didn't attack an actual threat like North Korea. Bush wanted to take attention away from his failure to capture Bin Laden so he attacked a non-threat (Iraq). They weren't percieved as a threat and weren't a threat at any point.

Notice they found one man in a hole in the ground of Iraq, but still no WMD's. And even if Iraq had a thousand WMD's, that doesn't make them a threat. England, France, Russia, China, etc. have nukes, does that make them threats?

Attacking Iraq for weapons they MIGHT have and MIGHT use in the future is like going door to door to arrest all gun owners and executing them for murders they MIGHT commit in the future. Except the attack in Iraq was even worse because they didn't even have the gun, and we have no authority to tell them they can't have one.

The Cuban missle crisis is a classic example. Under your theory, those missles would still be there or they would have hit their targets long ago. Either way, we were RIGHT in forcing the USSR to back down. We would have invaded had they not. I suppose you would have a problem with that too.

I sure do. The Cuban missile crisis happened as a direct result of America putting nukes in Turkey. Russia put missiles in Cuba in retaliation for America putting them in Turkey. Russia only removed the missiles from Cuba AFTER Kennedy was smart enough to back down and take our nukes out of Turkey.

We never would have had that crisis if we didn't initiate the threat against them.

Originally posted by Beestie


End of story for you, perhaps.

We didn't invade Iraq to liberate it. We invaded it because we felt threatened by it (Saddam). The threat, real or perceived, has been neutralized.

I think feeling threatened is as good a justification to attack as any. We might disagree on whether or not we SHOULD have felt threatened by Iraq but I cannot reasonably entertain the notion that we should ignore a mounting threat.

The Cuban missle crisis is a classic example. Under your theory, those missles would still be there or they would have hit their targets long ago. Either way, we were RIGHT in forcing the USSR to back down. We would have invaded had they not. I suppose you would have a problem with that too.

Why did we feel 'threatened' by Saddam who sat about and did nothing but not North Korea who parade their military about and BRAG about their 'weapons of mass destruction"?

Feeling 'threatened' is NOT a good justification to attack. I can feel threatened by your existence, but that doesn't give me the right to end it.

The Cuban missile crisis is a BS example because you fail to mention that US had plenty of missiles damn close to the USSR also. (Turkey I believe. Not 100% sure, but I can check.)

Placing the missiles in Cuba was a "me too" on the part of USSR. In fact it was later found that most of the missiles were NOT operational. But that’s besides the point.

If libertarians were in power at the time they'd not have the "Oh yeah?!" cold war going with USSR.

The difference with the Cuban Missile Crisis is, however, that we had proof that missiles were there.

So you are saying the the UN, Kofi Annan, Jacques Chirac and Bill Clinton were all wrong? They all said and agreed that Iraq had WMD.

Like I said, we can disagree on whether Saddam posed a clear and present danger to the US (directly or indirectly by selling some toxins to terrorists) but its completely indefensible to assert that he was incapable of posing a threat.

Beestie:
.....but its completely indefensible to assert that he was incapable of posing a threat.

And who 'incapable' of posing a threat?

Canada is capable of posing a theat. Canada has 'weapons of mass destruction' (WTF is WMD supposed to mean? What "isn't" a weapon of mass destruction anyway? You have WMD. We will now use our WMD on you!)

Anyway, lets attack Canada, they too are capable of being a threat and I think I can get some people to agree that they have WMDs.


Your logic is horribly flawed.

People are easier to find than non people, because they frequently interact with other people who then wander around interacting with other people. Weapons just sit there not interacting with anyone or anything (unless a person uses them).

Originally posted by juju
People are easier to find than non people, because they frequently interact with other people who then wander around interacting with other people. Weapons just sit there not interacting with anyone or anything (unless a person uses them).

Your logic is horribly flawed.

People NOT trying to hide: frequently interact with other people who then wander around interacting with other people.

People trying to hide: just sit there not interacting with anyone or anything.

WMD : = BIG
Person: = Small.

WMD := Rare, if seen will be spotted.
Person:= All over the place. Easily disguised.

The fact that not a single WMD has been found to date only proves that there are no WMDs.

I'm sure that even the now incustody Saddam will support this. He's got nothing to lose by telling the truth now.

Fact is:

IF there were WMDs he'd have used them before he fell from power when he had nothing to lose. He didn't. This means there are no WMDs.

Originally posted by Beestie


So you are saying the the UN, Kofi Annan, Jacques Chirac and Bill Clinton were all wrong? They all said and agreed that Iraq had WMD.

Like I said, we can disagree on whether Saddam posed a clear and present danger to the US (directly or indirectly by selling some toxins to terrorists) but its completely indefensible to assert that he was incapable of posing a threat.

How did Iraq pose a threat, Beestie? They had an army? They had tanks? Everyone's got those.

The UN inspection teams hadn't found anything in violation of UN terms by the time we invaded and they wanted more time to continue their search and run tests. At one time Iraq did pose a threat to surrounding areas, but in the past two years there was no evidence (except for false or misleading) to support that Iraq had WMD.

Every sovereign nation (Yes, Iraq is a was a sovereign nation even when Saddam ruled it) makes their own laws and decides for themselves which weapons they will or won't have. No nation is required to ask the US or the UN permission to have them. Merely having weapons doesn't make you a threat to the US. In fact Iraq had no reason to attack America before our unwarranted attack on them in 1991. And even after our unjustified attack in 1991, they still didn't attack us or help anyone else attack us even after we starved them to death and kept life-saving medicine from them for 12 years.

The UN has no authority over sovereign nations.

The US government doesn't get power or authority from the UN. It gets its VERY LIMITED powers from the Constitution and nowhere else and is prevented from doing anything not specifically listed in the Constitution.

That may be true, but I think its more likely that he interacted with people. There were probably people living in the place he was staying at, for example, protecting him, getting him food, etc. Its possible that one of them told someone, who told someone, who them gave him up.

Did he actually stay in the spider hole for the entire time the U.S. army was there? Was there a 1 year cache of food in the spider hole? If not, then he was somewhere else and then traveled to the location of the farm. He would have had an opportunity to be seen during this travel time.

Or perhaps he stayed at the farm but only went into the spider hole when the U.S. forces arrived. In that case, perhaps someone saw him through a window during his stay at the farm?

Perhaps he was involved with the rebellion, in which case he would have interacted with numerous people.

All or none of these may be possible, but even so, I am extremely skeptical of the suggestion that he stayed in his spider hole and didn't interact with anyone for the entire duration of the occupation.

FileNotFound wrote:

Your logic is horribly flawed.

I haven't used any logic to defend the war on Iraq. I indicated that we invaded because we felt threatened. I substantiated the threat by detailing the substance of the threat and demonstrating that others outside the US agreed that the WMD were there.

And by WMD I refer to nerve gas and other biotoxins outlawed by various international treaties.

That Canada has WMD is no reason to invade Canada because we don't feel threatened. Now if we run out of Molson then I'll lead the charge but to compare a peace-loving country like Canda to a sadistic, blood-thirsty, power hungry tyrant who had already attacked his neighbors is some seriously flawed logic.

I really think it boils down to whether or not the threat was substantial or not. Its easy not to be afraid once the threat has been neutralized. Its not very smart to not be afraid when the threat is real.

You may have the last word - I've said my peace.

Originally posted by Beestie
Now if we run out of Molson then I'll lead the charge but to compare a peace-loving country like Canda to a sadistic, blood-thirsty, power hungry tyrant who had already attacked his neighbors is some seriously flawed logic.[/B]

Run out... of Molson? I will lead that charge if we experience such a disastrous dry spell. :D

How did Iraq pose a threat, Beestie? They had an army? They had tanks? Everyone's got those.

The modern threat is "assymetrical warfare". No non-insane dictator would ever consider a direct confrontation with the US military. But today, you can do incredible damage to the enemy with a suicide bomber carrying a suitcase, or a handful of assholes with boxcutters.

This situation is completely unlike even seventy or eighty years ago, when to do damage to your enemy required you to employ the complete infrastructure of your country.

Originally posted by Undertoad
The modern threat is "assymetrical warfare". No non-insane dictator would ever consider a direct confrontation with the US military. But today, you can do incredible damage to the enemy with a suicide bomber carrying a suitcase, or a handful of assholes with boxcutters.

I agree with that, and while Iraq had no known involvement with 9/11, they did fund suicide bombers.

...but then we need to hurry up and get into Saudi Arabia, who gives a hell of a lot more money to suicide bombers and their families, including those of the 9/11 hijackers.

But you don't see our administration itching to invade that country anytime soon.

Originally posted by Undertoad

This situation is completely unlike even seventy or eighty years ago, when to do damage to your enemy required you to employ the complete infrastructure of your country.

*cough* Bullcrap

I agree with that, and while Iraq had no known involvement with 9/11, they did fund suicide bombers.

Which is completely irrelevant unless those suicide bombers attacked America and none did. The US Military has one and only one purpose, to defend against attacks. Not to launch unprovoked attacks when someone FEELS threatened. If a nation says outright that they are going to attack us (Iraq didn't), or they are in the process of attacking us, we may use our DEFENSIVE military. Otherwise we may not.


I dare anyone to tell me the difference between attacking Iraq who NEVER posed a threat (not even a percieved threat) to America, and going door-to-door arresting and executing gun owners in America.

Here's a few indisputable facts for the ignorant...

1. Iraq is a sovereign nation.

2. America has no authority beyond our own borders.

3. The U.S. Military has only one purpose and that is to defend AMERICA from attack (not percieved threats with no proof)

4. Sovereign nations don't require the permission of the UN, or any other country on earth (including America) to build and have any weapons they want.

5. Having weapons doesn't make a country a threat to America.

6. Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with the September 11th attacks and had no connection with those who did.

7. Starting wars doesn't promote peace.

8. It's easier to hide one man in a hole with a guard to get him food on occasion than it is to hide the "factories" of WMD's described by George W. Bush.

9. The U.S. Military violated the Constitution by attacking Iraq and George W. Bush violated the Constitution by starting an unprovoked war against a [COLOR=orangered]NON-THREAT[/COLOR] like Iraq.

10. The attack against Iraq didn't defend America and in fact endangered America and the rest of the world.

Originally posted by Radar
[b]3. The U.S. Military has only one purpose and that is to defend AMERICA from attack (not percieved threats with no proof)[/B]

While the US has a military and its stated job is to defend this country and only this country, we have entered into various agreements that force our military to protect others, such as NATO.

Do we sit back and let a long-time ally perish at the hands of an opressor if they are attacked? If we, The United States, were attacked, would we not expect assistance for our allies?

Originally posted by Undertoad
He [Saddam] is also connected to the 1993 WTC bombing and the funding of much terrorism.

This is a greater lie than even Barak posted. No matter how hard they tried - and they tried even by creating an intelligent service that was not "corrupted like CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency" - the White House could not find a single credible fact relating Saddam to the WTC attack.

Who was Saddam's greatest enemy. Muslim Brotherhood. Why would Saddam cooperate with his greatest enemy to attack the WTC. Anyone with any knowledge of international news and history knows that Saddam did everything he could to avoid conflict with the US. That fact was fundamental to everything Saddam did. Those two reasons immediately demonstrate how much the above quote is a dam lie - something only a Richard Nixon type would post. Saddam had nothing to do with the WTC destruction. Only those seeking to promote fear and loathing would even post such nonsense.

Saddam's objectives were to be the great leader of Central Asia - in the tradition of the great Hammuri and the empire of Babylon. Long before Saddam would be a threat to the US, he first had to be a threat to his neighbors. He was no longer even a threat to his neighbors. Attacking the US provided him with nothing. In fact, only the paranoid would suggest Iraq was an asymmetrical threat to the US. In the meantime this current president also feared missile attacks from Saddam. Just as absurd. But fear runs rampant in this country now that George Jr is president. How to stay popular? Invent enemies. Promoting fear was the purpose of the above lie about Saddam and the WTC.

Saddam had nothing to do with supporting his greatest enemies or in the attack on the WTC. That is so fundamental a fact that to say otherwise says one is blind and deaf, or one worships Rush Limbaugh's hate and fear campaign.

Originally posted by Undertoad
It may have been a response to the Aussie's handling of East Timor.

Because we handled East Timor so much better. Oh no, that's horribly wrong. We supported a genocide that no one talks about. We overthrow democracies when we don't like the leader voted in. Then we wonder why people hate us.

Quzah.

Originally posted by Radar
Those seem like unrealistic promises, while all of mine are solid, easily obtained, genuinely possible plans.

Nothing in this government is 'easily obtainable'. Too much red tape. Remember that song about a Bill that they played on TV? About all the steps it has to go through? Not that that is entirely bad, but nothing is easily obtainable. Except becomming President. All that takes is one state.

Quzah.

While the US has a military and its stated job is to defend this country and only this country, we have entered into various agreements that force our military to protect others, such as NATO.

The treaty making power granted to the government in the Constitution refers to non-aggression treaties and trade agreements, not the promise of using our military to defend other nations. The founders knew the danger of this and made mention of it.

In fact the reason World War I became a World War rather than a local dispute was because there were complicated treaties among several nations the pulled them into the conflict that wasn't theirs.

The US should remain neutral in all conflicts; even those of our allies. In fact when you're neutral, all countries are your allies. Name an enemy of Switzerland. When countries know they will be on their own if they start a war, they'll be less likely to start one.

If you have a moment, I think you'll be pleased to read this little essay by Harry Browne

Originally posted by Undertoad
The war itself was not all that costly, killed about a hundredth of the number of people Saddam himself killed, and was done by an all-volunteer military. What's the big effing deal?

The "reconstruction" will be very costly, that's the part you should oppose I'd expect.

Cost schmost. There are some I think it is six trillion dollars worth of oil in one of the two countries we liberated alone...

AH HAH! THIS is what I was looking for...

Quzah.

Originally posted by Beestie
We invaded it because we felt threatened by it (Saddam). The threat, real or perceived, has been neutralized.

I think feeling threatened is as good a justification to attack as any. We might disagree on whether or not we SHOULD have felt threatened by Iraq but I cannot reasonably entertain the notion that we should ignore a mounting threat.

Here, let me help, you seem to have some wool over your eyes...

We invaded because we felt threatened by (them controling more oil than we felt they should. It would be much better if we had that oil.)
I think feeling threatened is as good a justification to attack as any(, so we should go bomb the fuck out of North Korea because they have openly threatened and disregarded how we think they should behave with regards to nukes.)

So go on bad ass. Get your butt over and invade NK. After all, they're openly threatening us. Or don't you care because they have no oil? GW, is that you? Nah, you can compose sentences at least.

Quzah.

Nothing in this government is 'easily obtainable'.

I think we can all agree that destruction is easier than construction.

What I propose is merely removing the parts of government that are unconstitutional. And you're correct that it won't be easy without support. People will fight to keep their unconstitutional social programs, handouts, etc. until they realize when we get rid of these things, they won't have to pay a penny of income taxes. They'll be able to keep what they earn, have excellent healthcare at an affordable price, send thier children to superior schools that teach what they want their children to learn, prepare a better retirement, give more money to those in need, the freedom to support programs they want and not those they don't, etc.

I don't want to add something, I just want to get rid of what's not supposed to be there.

There are a lot of things that can be done by a Libertarian president that don't require the approval of Congress that would immediately improve America by defending our rights, and eliminating fat.

Originally posted by Radar
The US should remain neutral in all conflicts; even those of our allies. In fact when you're neutral, all countries are your allies. Name an enemy of Switzerland. When countries know they will be on their own if they start a war, they'll be less likely to start one.

An interesting idea, and I'll read the essay in a moment, but the thought made me think of Japan. Japan is technically a neutral country per their constitution -- they are only permitted to use their military to defend themselves. Yet, North Korea has been making some incredibly agressive statements and military exercises toward that neutral island nation.

...and I couldn't bear to think what would happen if Japan were attacked and we threw our arms up with the reply, "Your problem, you deal with it. Yes, we know they are launching nukes at you, but its your war."

Originally posted by Kitsune
Do we sit back and let a long-time ally perish at the hands of an opressor if they are attacked? If we, The United States, were attacked, would we not expect assistance for our allies?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but not too long ago we liked Iraq... then we tricked them into invading another country so we could go to war with them.

So in short, if you're thinking of starting a country, have nothing to do with America at all. Don't have any oil either.

Quzah.

...and I couldn't bear to think what would happen if Japan were attacked and we threw our arms up with the reply, "Your problem, you deal with it. Yes, we know they are launching nukes at you, but its your war."

Once again, this is an example of America's interventionism crippling another country. At the end of WWII, America ensured that Japan would not build a military to defend themselves. Now we're stuck with the job. I say we tell Japan to start building their own army, navy, airforce, etc. and we'll start pulling out. Being intimately familiar with Japanese culture and it's people, I'm sure they'd have a military in no time that could easily defend themselves including nukes. In fact Japan would probably build cheaper, more reliable, and smaller nukes that packed more of a bang.

America's military should not be stationed anywhere on earth but America during times of peace. This would ensure that we'd have a lot more times of peace.

Originally posted by Beestie
Iran, my friend, is NOT an Arab nation.

Accurately stated. The post should have said Muslim or regional nation; not Arab nation.

Other nations with no legal claim against Saddam were Turkey and Israel. Saddam coveted his neighbors including Iran and Kuwait. Had he been successful, then it would probably only been time before he devoured Saudia Arabia, Jordan, and Syria to form a pan-Arab nation. This was his grandious objective which made him a threat to his neighbors. He started first by attacking what he thought would be an easy takeover -Iran. Easy because even we would provide him with satellite intelligence and chemicals for chemical warfare to help him succeed. Starting with Iran and afterwards, everything started going downhill. However Saddam seems to be the last to realize where he was going in his objectives.

Two nations that Saddam would never attack were Turkey and Israel. Turkey is NATO. And NATO is the US. Israel is obviously protected by the US. Saddam would do everything possible to avoid conflict with the US. Even Saddam knew where to attack and what to leave alone. He chose to attack nations that the US said would be permitted. He failed in Iran. He misinterpreted what he was told about Kuwait. But every Muslim and regional nation always kept one eye on Saddam. They did not trust him - but tolerated him because he was no direct threat - unless they lost US support. Saddam always tried to avoid conflict with the US. But his ego got in the way of logical analysis - and he therefore made a big mistake in Kuwait. Only then did we get concerned that we had all but encouraged him to build chemical and biological weapons. Before he invaded Kuwait, Saddam was considered a US friend - so much so that we even shared intelligence satellite information with him.

Originally posted by Kitsune
An interesting idea, and I'll read the essay in a moment, but the thought made me think of Japan. Japan is technically a neutral country per their constitution -- they are only permitted to use their military to defend themselves. Yet, North Korea has been making some incredibly agressive statements and military exercises toward that neutral island nation.

The threat by N Korea is based in something far deeper. Those N Korean generals were raised as children to believe virtually the entire world was a threat to N Korea. N Korea is not threatening Japan. They are simply the bully who rattles chains and billy clubs because, psychologically inside, they fear everyone else. They also discovered the weapons generate by such tactics became their greatest source of exports and income. Just another reasons to entertain that paranoia. N Korea is a threat only because so much of the N Korean leadership is paranoid. So paranoid as to fear international aid from NGOs even as their people eat grass to survice and starve to death.

That was why Carter's negotiations to break N Korea was so important. His diplomacy was the first step to breaking that paranoia. George Jr simply reinforced the paranoia by empowering the N Korea paranoids at the expense of those who sought reform - and the elimination of that paranoia. Fear is the driving factor in N Korean international relations.

tw wrote:

That was why Carter's negotiations to break N Korea was so important.

You mean the negotiations where Carter and Clinton gave NK around a billion of OUR dollars for a promise not to develop nuclear weapons which NK proceeded to spend the billion on?

Yeah, a definite high water mark in kiss-ass diplomacy.

Originally posted by Kitsune


How did Iraq pose a threat, Beestie? They had an army? They had tanks? Everyone's got those.

The UN inspection teams hadn't found anything in violation of UN terms by the time we invaded and they wanted more time to continue their search and run tests. At one time Iraq did pose a threat to surrounding areas, but in the past two years there was no evidence (except for false or misleading) to support that Iraq had WMD.

[COLOR=indigo]Actually, the fact that the weapons inspectors from the UN didn't find what they were looking for was more telling. Iraq admitted to the UN they had biological and chemical weapons, and said, "We have this much, and we've destroyed this much." then gave us numbers.

So the UN said, "OK, show us." Well, they couldn't. Then, they got caught fudging the numbers, so they said, "Well, we really made THIS much, and destroyed THIS much." They got caught again. They changed the numbers. Again.

Had the inspectors found what they were looking for, had Saddam Hussein complied with the UN requirements, much of this whole mess could have been avoided. But Saddam is a compulsive liar, so they lied to the UN. The big hoohah was over the WMD that Saddam already admitted to having, but was no where to be found.[/COLOR]

You're ignoring the fact that Iraq was under no obligation to tell the UN or anyone else how many weapons or what kind of weapons they have. Iraq is a sovereign nation and doesn't require permission from anyone to have any weapons they want including nukes. Were I the leader of Iraq, I'd tell America, and the UN to kiss my hairy ass and don't presume to tell me what to do in MY country.

So there is absolutely no room for treaties or alliances in your imaginary nation?

Originally posted by OnyxCougar


[COLOR=indigo]Actually, the fact that the weapons inspectors from the UN didn't find what they were looking for was more telling. Iraq admitted to the UN they had biological and chemical weapons, and said, "We have this much, and we've destroyed this much." then gave us numbers.

So the UN said, "OK, show us." Well, they couldn't.[/COLOR]

True, although I guess you could say the same for the US. The fact that the US didn't find the 500 tons of vx/sarin/mustard gas is very telling, too. The US generals said it was there, but they couldn't find it even after months had passed of our occupation. The people of the US said "show us" (or, I wish they would) and, well, they couldn't.

I guess what it comes down to is, like so many people have said, whether this was really a threat or not and what your reaction to the threat is.

UT made the comparison to having a gun pointed at us, others have said that there was no real threat, while another group says we shouldn't even be involved in actions like this.

What I would like to know is this: should the US continue on this path with other countries? I see that, as of last week, Bush is pushing for sanctions on Syria and others are looking at Iran with a curious eye. I get the feeling, personally, that this is starting to get a little dangerous as we get our hands involved in more and spread ourselves thinner and thinner. Yet, it seems, that we're stuck in the Middle East for today and many years/decades to come and there really isn't an easy way out even if we wanted to drop this whole mess.

Personally, I think it has the possibility of ending in disaster with a high loss of American lives, security, and global stability.

Radar, so we should just let them bomb us with nukes? cool! nice work! :3eye:
no country should be allowed nukes, but y'know america would hardly be happy if they were told to get rid of there ones. hmm there is a word I'm looking for, hipa.., hipia.., hmm will come to me :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Radar



[b]6. Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with the September 11th attacks and had no connection with those who did.
[/B]

From the Press Trust of India:

LONDON, DECEMBER 14: The mastermind of the September 2001 attacks in the US, Mohammad Atta, was trained in Baghdad by a Palestinian terrorist at the instance of deposed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, a media report said today.

Atta, who was trained by Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal, visited Baghdad just weeks before the terror attack, The Sunday Telegraph reported. The details of Atta’s visit are contained in a secret memo, written to Hussein by the former head of Iraqi intelligence service Tahir Jalil Habbush Al-Tikriti, it said.

The handwritten memo, a copy of which has been obtained by the daily is dated July 1, 2001 and provides a short resume of a three-day ‘‘work programme’’ Atta had undertaken at Nidal’s base in Baghdad. In the memo, Habbush reports that Atta ‘‘displayed extraordinary effort’’ and demonstrated his ability to lead the team that would be ‘‘responsible for attacking the targets that we have agreed to destroy.’’

Although Iraqi officials refused to disclose how and where they had obtained the document, Ayad Allawi, a member of Iraq’s ruling seven-man presidential committee, said the document was genuine.

‘‘We are uncovering evidence all the time of Saddam’s involvement with Al Qaeda,’’ Allawi said. ‘‘But this is the most compelling piece of evidence that we have found so far. It shows that not only did Saddam have contacts with Al Qaeda, he had contact with those responsible for the September 11 attacks.’’

Originally posted by Radar
You're ignoring the fact that Iraq was under no obligation to tell the UN or anyone else how many weapons or what kind of weapons they have. Iraq is a sovereign nation and doesn't require permission from anyone to have any weapons they want including nukes. Were I the leader of Iraq, I'd tell America, and the UN to kiss my hairy ass and don't presume to tell me what to do in MY country.

[COLOR=indigo]
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.)

Whether you think they were under obligation or not is irrelevant. Iraq is a member nation of the UN, and Iraq seemed to think it had an obligation to report to the UN, and lied.
[/COLOR]

So there is absolutely no room for treaties or alliances in your imaginary nation?

I don't have an imaginary nation. I'm talking about the United States of America and what was a reality in this country. And I, like the the founders of the United States of America, am just fine with making treaties. We can make non-aggression treaties, trade agreement treaties, etc. Just no treaty that involves using the US military to defend any nation other than the United States.

From the Press Trust of India:

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.

Radar, so we should just let them bomb us with nukes?

Who said anything about letting people bomb us with nukes? Every country can have any weapon they want and doesn't require our permission or that of the UN. That doesn't mean we let them bomb us. Lately it seems the only way America won't attack you is if you have nukes. Nukes are just a way to make sure people don't do something stupid. It's like the old saying, "If everyone has a gun, everyone is polite".

We can peacefully ask them not to make nukes, or see if we can bribe them, but in the end no country or group of countries has the authority to tell another how they will defend themselves. Just as no person or group of people has the authority to tell you that you can't own a gun.

The supporters of the war in Iraq (Anti-Americans) sing a different tune when asked the following...

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?

What makes you think American government has the authority to tell other sovereign nations what weapons they may or may not have when they don't even have the legal authority to do that to people inside of America.

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

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?

[COLOR=indigo]It's ok because it was part of the agreement that Saddam Hussein entered in to.[/COLOR]

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.

[COLOR=indigo]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.
[/COLOR]

[SIZE=4]SADDAM WAS FORCED TO SIGN UNDER DURESS!!![/SIZE]

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.

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

Originally posted by Radar
[SIZE=4]SADDAM WAS FORCED TO SIGN UNDER DURESS!!![/SIZE]

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.

[COLOR=indigo]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.

[/COLOR]

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.

[list][*][SIZE=2]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!!![/SIZE][/list]

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.

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.

[COLOR=indigo]
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?



[/COLOR]

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.

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.

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.

[COLOR=indigo]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.
[/COLOR]

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

[COLOR=indigo]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?[/COLOR]

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.

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 ......

Originally posted by quzah

Sure there's healthcare. If you can afford it.

Quzah.

Or if you have a good job that provides it. Oooo don't get me started! Healthcare workers tend to treat you "differently" when they find out that you are on the state's insurance instead of commercial. Trust me, I know all too well...

And the thing that REALLY gets me is that if you are already ill (read: preexisiting conditions), you'll have to wait up to a year for your benefits to kick in, but they will want you to still pay the monthly preminums. Oh hell no: why would I want to pay for a service that I can't use immediately? :rar:

Originally posted by wolf
People with low/no incomes qualify for medical assistance, which is many cases is better coverage than a lot of paid iinsurance plans.

True, but you practically have to have one foot in the poverty gutter to get EVERYTHING covered. As it stands, I don't have prescriptions covered because I fall into a certain category. In other words, the state assumes that I make too much money (between unemployment and SSDI). They must be out of their goddamned minds if they think that those incomes could afford HALF of the total of medications that I have to take everyday! They better be lucky that there is such a thing as State Renal Insurance, or I'd pretty much be dead by now, no joke! :(

I guess I shouldn't complain too much because I also have Medicare (which renal patients are pretty much automatically qualified for, but again, no script coverage). But still, it's been a hassle at times dealing with the state, so I guess all that is coming back to me as I write this. Sorry...:mad:

Originally posted by Radar
This is all more rhetoric in an attempt to get re-elected, but it just won't happen.

My dad thought this too (that this was all a political ploy). He also doesn't think they have the real Hussain (DNA tests be damned!).

Just keep your eyes open for the merchandise coming to a Walmart near you:

*on a t-shirt*
"Ladies and Gentlemen...WE GOT 'IM!"

America LOVES a catchphrase....
:rolleyes:

Originally posted by ladysycamore

My dad thought this too (that this was all a political ploy). He also doesn't think they have the real Hussain (DNA tests be damned!).

[COLOR=indigo]I have Yahoo has my home page, so when I open firebird, I got presented with the news. I immediately ran over to turn on CNN and Steve (ever the skeptic, I cannot understand HOW he became Christian...) says,

Him: "How do they know it's him?"
Me: "They did DNA tests. It's him."
Him: "Well, with DNA don't you have to have something to test it against?"
Me: "Yeah."
Him: "Well, where did we get his DNA from?"
Me: (blinking)
Him: "I mean, he has like 100 doubles, how do we know the DNA that they think is his is really his and not his double's DNA? What if we got his double's DNA and now we only have his double?"
Me: ".......uh....... I dunno?"
Him: (warming up to the subject) "I mean, wouldn't that be something? He didn't fight because he's NOT THE REAL ONE! He's like the one we saw after we bombed Baghdad. You know the one that we weren't sure was him or his double. What if we captured that guy?"


Yeah. Life in my apartment. Always the conundrums.


[/COLOR]

Originally posted by OnyxCougar


[COLOR=indigo]I have Yahoo has my home page, so when I open firebird, I got presented with the news. I immediately ran over to turn on CNN and Steve (ever the skeptic, I cannot understand HOW he became Christian...) says,

Him: "How do they know it's him?"
Me: "They did DNA tests. It's him."
Him: "Well, with DNA don't you have to have something to test it against?"
Me: "Yeah."
Him: "Well, where did we get his DNA from?"
Me: (blinking)
Him: "I mean, he has like 100 doubles, how do we know the DNA that they think is his is really his and not his double's DNA? What if we got his double's DNA and now we only have his double?"
Me: ".......uh....... I dunno?"
Him: (warming up to the subject) "I mean, wouldn't that be something? He didn't fight because he's NOT THE REAL ONE! He's like the one we saw after we bombed Baghdad. You know the one that we weren't sure was him or his double. What if we captured that guy?"


Yeah. Life in my apartment. Always the conundrums.


[/COLOR]

Dear god...sounds like he's channeling my dad...lol!! He also mentioned the many doubles, and it did make me think a bit. Now Steve has me thinking some more...heh!

Just pondering the possibilities...:D

A little gem from Ralph Peters:

As we wait for the details behind Saddam's capture, want to know why we got Uday and Qusay? The reward was tempting. But the deciding factor for their unhappy host was more visceral: Saddam's boys smacked around his wife. At that point, our money and the promise of relocation abroad became irresistible. Uday and Qusay signed their own death warrants with a temper tantrum.

[COLOR=indigo]I like this paragraph best.[/COLOR]

Meanwhile, there have been many other encouraging details the media ignored. In that devastating attack on the Italian police, the terrorists had to expend more resources than previously. Heightened security didn't stop the attack, but it raised the price. The bomb-laden vehicle didn't carry a single suicide bomber. There were four terrorists inside, one to drive and three to shoot their way through the guards and barricades. May not sound like much, but that means one suicide attack instead of four. Even in the Middle East, there isn't an unlimited supply of young men willing to blow themselves up. The cost of terrorism continues to rise for our enemies.

Originally posted by OnyxCougar


[COLOR=indigo]Him: "How do they know it's him?"
Me: "They did DNA tests. It's him."
Him: "Well, with DNA don't you have to have something to test it against?"
Me: "Yeah."
Him: "Well, where did we get his DNA from?"
Me: (blinking)

[/COLOR]

I'm sure they took samples from his kids. That in itself should be enough to make sure it's not one of the doubles.

Does anyone else find it odd that the best Saddam could pull off as far as a hiding place goes is a hole in the ground?

You'd think that someone with his level of connections and financial assests would have been better prepared. Just seemed odd to me from the start.

If he was truly a sociopath, he could easily have had no conception that he could be defeated.

Originally posted by dar512


I'm sure they took samples from his kids. That in itself should be enough to make sure it's not one of the doubles.

[COLOR=indigo]I'll point that out and see what he can come up with.[/COLOR]

Originally posted by dar512


I'm sure they took samples from his kids. That in itself should be enough to make sure it's not one of the doubles.

Assuming he's really their father ...

(you know, this can go on and on and on and on with no satisfactory resolution)

but wouldn't it be funny if we did DNA tests and found out that Uday and Qusay had had different fathers?


--

Nice post, onetrack.

I had been wondering if the US Occupation might be able to unite the Iraqi people. If we keep at it like this for long enough, we might be one of the better things that have happened to them in the past four hundred years.

Originally posted by Torrere
but wouldn't it be funny if we did DNA tests and found out that Uday and Qusay had had different fathers?

Next week on Maury...

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

Quzah.

"We caught the wrong guy"

Originally posted by jinx
"We caught the wrong guy"

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

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?

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

[COLOR=indigo]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.[/COLOR]

"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. "

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 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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

If investments are tied to using our military to defend other countries, those investors will have to look elsewhere. Security is more important.

Security is great, but a gun in the hand does nothing unless you have business to keep food on the table.

Security is exactly what investors look for, just not the kind of security you are speaking of. Investors and companies look to put their money in places that will be able to do international business and that trade routes to other countries will always remain open and stable. It is specifically because of the security that the US brings to itself and its partners that people and companies put their money here -- they feel comfortable that things are not likely to change so drastically at a moment's notice.

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.

Again, not the kind of stability you are thinking of. In today's environment, the ability to do business internationally is the most critical aspect. If you have no one to do business with overseas on a constant, secure, and stable level, then there are no expansion or investment opportnities for you. Your own stability comes first, but quickly behind it comes the stability of your trading partners and the US has succeeded in this specifically because the US helps keep its partners secure.

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

I do not support a "one world government" and that is not what I'm talking about -- I'm just stating what the current state of international business is: a collection of governments that all back one another and, through their collective strength, have come to dominate and succeed through their agreements.

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.

Diversity in the world is a good thing, but there has been a single dominating factor in international business for the more than the past one hundred years: the almighty US dollar. That dollar doesn't hold its stength in gold backing or the ability of this country to freely trade -- that dollar is accepted practically everywhere in this world because the US has the power it does, it exerts the power it does, and there is an incredible stability between the US and all of its allies across the globe. People see the US and our allies as an incredible, powerful business trading empire. Why? Because everyone knows that business will go about uninterrupted between all of our partners and investments will remain stable and secure. If the US were to back down on all of the agreements it has with other countries and essentially become a defensive island that welcomes free trade, you would see the value of the dollar hit rock bottom -- the trust in it and all it represents to the international community would fail, just as the security and trust of other countries would flounder.

Security is great, but a gun in the hand does nothing unless you have business to keep food on the table.

And the business would still be there at the same level, if not more so.

Investors and companies look to put their money in places that will be able to do international business and that trade routes to other countries will always remain open and stable.

Investing is gambling. If you invest in a foreign country, you deal with their government, their security, and their laws. The US Military is NOT here to defend trade routes, or investments made in other countries. Those are not within the scope of our military or in my opinion, anyone else's either.

Again, not the kind of stability you are thinking of. In today's environment, the ability to do business internationally is the most critical aspect. If you have no one to do business with overseas on a constant, secure, and stable level, then there are no expansion or investment opportnities for you

Those are the chances you take as an investor. It's not reasonable to expect the government to defend your foreign investments. If you want to do business internationally, you should choose who you do business with wisely and don't make such unreasonable demands of government. Also if investors find less opportunity internationally, they'll invest more domestically.

I do not support a "one world government" and that is not what I'm talking about -- I'm just stating what the current state of international business is: a collection of governments that all back one another and, through their collective strength, have come to dominate and succeed through their agreements.

International business has been done by each country providing their own security in their own country. It's not up to America to defend other countries, and it's unrealistic to expect them to protect America in case of a war. They handle their end and we handle ours. It's called personal responsibility. We trade internationally by trading freely with all countries and honoring contracts with them. If they don't honor ours, we stop trading with them. Those who want our money, will quicky learn to make sure investments from America are secure.

Diversity in the world is a good thing, but there has been a single dominating factor in international business for the more than the past one hundred years: the almighty US dollar

I've got news for you, the US dollar is worthless. It has nothing to back it up and it's not even made by the government. Other country's currency has been moving up against the dollar for decades.

That dollar doesn't hold its stength in gold backing or the ability of this country to freely trade -- that dollar is accepted practically everywhere in this world because the US has the power it does, it exerts the power it does, and there is an incredible stability between the US and all of its allies across the globe.

If you're asserting that the dollar has value due to our military interventionism, you're not only not in the same ball park, you're not even in the same sport. That claim has no validity what-so-ever.

People see the US and our allies as an incredible, powerful business trading empire. Why? Because everyone knows that business will go about uninterrupted between all of our partners and investments will remain stable and secure. If the US were to back down on all of the agreements it has with other countries and essentially become a defensive island that welcomes free trade, you would see the value of the dollar hit rock bottom -- the trust in it and all it represents to the international community would fail, just as the security and trust of other countries would flounder.

Bullshit.

If America stopped sticking our noses into the affairs of other nations, we'd do MORE business and have more stability in the business world. People would know we'd have less enemies, and trade wouldn't be restricted or hampered by wars. People trade with America because we're the wealthiest nation on earth and that has everything to do with capitalism and nothing to do with treaties that promise to use the American military to defend other nations. We're not wealthy because of our military interventionism or because of the government's screwing around with the markets. We're wealthy in spite of it. And we would be even more wealthy, powerful, and stable if we pulled out of any treaty that promises to use our military to defend any other nation.

Actually, Radar, one of the traditional jobs of a Navy _IS_ to defend trade routes.

It's to defend American ships (including those carrying goods) against pirates, and foreign attackers. But not to defend foreign ships or lands.

Originally posted by Radar
It's to defend American ships (including those carrying goods) against pirates, and foreign attackers. But not to defend foreign ships or lands.

I wonder how many pirates with cannons and cutlasses it would take to commandeer something like an aircraft carrier. That would make for a fun movie. A whole fuckload of pirate ships come out of the triangle or something hokey and try and take it over.

It's an interesting thought. Assuming they started close enough to have a chance (can't scramble all the aircraft and blow them away 500 miles out), it'd be interesting to see.

How's that for a thread hijack?

Quzah.

Originally posted by Radar
Those who invaded Iraq are traitors who have violated their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic... And Bush took our once proud military and turned them into a bunch of cheap thugs and hired killers who endanger America and the world rather than secure peace and defend it.

EXCUSE ME?? One of my best friends who is in the National Guard is over there getting shot at. He doesn't want to be there. He does not believe they should be there in the first place. And yet you lump him in with Bush? Don't even fucking go there.

And tell my co-worker whose youngest son is over there that her baby is a traiter and a "hired killer". I dare you.

I have no issues with your other points. Attack the politics of the situation all you want until you are blue in the face. It does not matter to me.

But don't you dare suggest that most of the men and women that are over there right now missing holiday's with their families want to be over there so they can be "thugs and hired killers."

EXCUSE ME?? One of my best friends who is in the National Guard is over there getting shot at. He doesn't want to be there. He does not believe they should be there in the first place. And yet you lump him in with Bush? Don't even fucking go there.

Your friend could refuse the order to go there because the order to go there is unconstitutional. If you honor your oath to uphold and defend the Constitution you are under no obligation to follow unconstitutional ones. I served in the Navy and I would have refused a direct order to go on the grounds that the order to go is unconstitutional.

Nobody said those who went wanted to be there, but they chose to follow an unconstitutional order knowing it was wrong (most think invading Iraq was a great idea). They violated their oath to god and the American people and are endangering America rather than defending it.

But don't you dare suggest that most of the men and women that are over there right now missing holiday's with their families want to be over there so they can be "thugs and hired killers."

I do dare say it. That's exactly what they've become thanks to Bush. They may not want to be hired killers and thugs, but they are none-the-less. They are traitors because they are following unconstitutional orders. And I'll tell anyone in any armed service who invaded Iraq that they're a traitor right to their face.

Originally posted by Radar


I do dare say it. That's exactly what they've become thanks to Bush. They may not want to be hired killers and thugs, but they are none-the-less. They are traitors because they are following unconstitutional orders. And I'll tell anyone in any armed service who invaded Iraq that they're a traitor right to their face.

Then I think you should start wearin your ass as a hat because if they come home and you do say it to their face - just being an asshat will be better than what they will do to you.

Radar wrote:

And I'll tell anyone in any armed service who invaded Iraq that they're a traitor right to their face.

I doubt it.

:D

Radar - I think your attitude to the military people on the ground in Iraq is wrong .. just as the anti-war peoples attitude to us as returning Vets from Vietnam was wrong .. throwing blood on us and calling us "murderers!!", only engendered hatred of the anti-war peoples aims .. which were basically idealistic.

I think you will find, that a lot of military people on the ground in Iraq, don't really want to be there .. and they are only following orders .. but more importantly .. they THINK they are doing the right thing by the Iraqi and American people.

I think your beef should really be with the U.S. military machine .. not with individual soldiers who do not deserve calls of ''traitor'' .. when they think they are doing the right thing.

The U.S. military machine .. and by that, I mean the ENTIRE industry, from soldiering to military manufacturing .. on which so much of America relies for income and security, is where the major distortion is, in America today ..

Prior to WW2, the military .. and the industry behind it, were but a blip in the economy .. no members of the current, ruling, baby-boomer generation can recall America without a massive military industry .. something that needs to be righted, before America can be put back on an even keel ..

America today resembles one of those body building freaks, with massively enlarged muscles in one area, while the rest of the body is out of proportion .. if the body is not restored to a proper proportion, problems will develop in your great nation that will inevitably lead to its decline.


Interesting reading in this gentlemans, following lecture links ....

The lecturer, Owen Harries is a senior fellow at the Centre for Independent Studies in Sydney, and Editor Emeritus of The National Interest, a leading Washington-based foreign policy quarterly ..

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/boyers/stories/s987423.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/boyers/stories/s987503.htm

I personally believe that the ''vision'' and "greatness" of America in world affairs, articulated as a quote from Tom Pain, in the second lecture, is one that is being formed .. wrongly .. by the excessive use of the U.S. military machine .. rather than one of leadership, and ''good works'' (educative works) in those foreign countries America wishes to see improved.

One-track - thank you. This is exactly what I mean. Blame the heads of the military and lord knows we all blame Bush. Don't blame the little soldiers that are doing this because they didn't feel like going to jail for being awol.

This week's Heroes & Goats from the Philadelphia Weekly

Originally posted by daniwong
One-track - thank you. This is exactly what I mean. Blame the heads of the military and lord knows we all blame Bush. Don't blame the little soldiers that are doing this because they didn't feel like going to jail for being awol.

One-track, being a forigner, may have less emotional involvement, giving him a better perspectve than we in the middle of it.
The only sure way to stop the military/industrial complex that Ike warned us about, is getting involved and voting.
If all the soldiers followed Radar's que and refused to follow an "unconstitutional order" in a Ghandi-like protest, we'd be building a jail....or a cemetary, the size of a state.

Perhaps Bruce...but had a significant number of soldiers become CO's, it may have forced the Bush administration to rethink their plan.

That maybe true, but those that did would pay a heavy price. Doesn't matter how many there were, "Military Justice" would roll on. A dishonorable or even general discharge haunts you forever and that's after jail time.

Originally posted by Radar
And I'll tell anyone in any armed service who invaded Iraq that they're a traitor right to their face.

[COLOR=indigo]I venture to say you would not be concious long after saying that to 5 Marines.

It IS analagous to calling Vietnam Vets "murderers" and "baby-killers".

If I recall correctly, you're a public official (or were running as one) in San Bernardino County, California. Being in the Navy, had you refused a direct order to report, you would have been found guilty of disobeying orders, and jailed, and probably dishonorably discharged.

You may be able to say, "I was in the right!" but all voters will hear is, "DISHONORABLE DISCHARGE: DISOBEYING A DIRECT ORDER FROM A SUPERIOR OFFICER".

To make the changes you propose will require a revolution, and unfortunetly for revolutionists, the military protects from all enemies, foreign and domestic, as you've pointed out. It's not going to get far. Most Americans are too dumb and/or too lazy and/or too brainwashed and/or too frightened to comprehend AND act on what you're talking about.

Your ideas are great in a perfect paper world. We don't live in that world.

[/COLOR]

Just few questions here;

1) Does anyone have any idea where the fuck I am? and

2) Will someone smuggle me in a fruitcake with a saw or a handgun inside, just for old times' sake?

Much like the Grinch, I feel my heart growing on this holiest of Christian holidays. Until and unless I escape, that is. Then I'll be the same ol' Saddam I used to be.


Clean Shaven and Showered,

Saddam

venture to say you would not be concious long after saying that to 5 Marines.

Marines are pussies. I'll tell that to any 5, 10, or 20 of them.

Being in the Navy, had you refused a direct order to report, you would have been found guilty of disobeying orders, and jailed, and probably dishonorably discharged.

Those in the military are under no obligation to follow unconstitutional orders. In fact they are not fulfilling their duty if they do follow those orders. I would win in court and would not get the dishonorable discharge.

To make the changes you propose will require a revolution, and unfortunetly for revolutionists, the military protects from all enemies, foreign and domestic, as you've pointed out.

Wrong, I've pointed out that their job is to protect us from enemies foreign and they are failing in that duty. They are endangering America rather than defending it, and they are following the orders of domestic enemies rather than protecting us from them.

Your ideas are great in a perfect paper world. We don't live in that world.

My ideas are perfect in the real world that we actually live in right now.

Originally posted by Radar
Marines are pussies.

And this is based on...?

The hundreds I've known in the Navy. And they're not the brightest bulbs on the x-mas tree either.

Originally posted by Radar
The hundreds I've known in the Navy. And they're not the brightest bulbs on the x-mas tree either.

No one ever said they had to be bright to kick your ass.

"They talk a mean fight, but fight like hoes..."

No one ever said they had to be bright to kick your ass.

They'll have to be smarter, faster, and stronger, which isn't likely. I'll put my money on the smarter, and better experienced fighter over one who may be younger or bigger. Size has never been an obstacle for me. Ass kicking doesn't discriminate based on size.

I'd put my money on a randomly selected Marine.

(Hell, I'd put my money on a randomly-selected Cellar member)

Oooh ooh!!! Pick me randomly, pick me!!!

Now, now, children. Public brawling never solved anything that stealth in the night couldn't solve.;)