OT: Saddam Hussein Arrested

[Fyron]

Legality is not an issue related to declaring war... there is no such thing as a "legal war" or an "illegal war". There is right and wrong, but not legality.

[ December 14, 2003, 18:56: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[Fyron]

Originally posted by rextorres:
All I can say it's funny how some people - all of sudden - seem to care about the poor Iraqis.

Where were all these same people during Rwanda, Haiti and Kosovo. They were busy criticizing Clinton for nation building.

Those that only care about partisan politics (such as you), sure. But, there are plenty of people that support the Iraq war for caring about Iraqis that also supported those other wars for caring about the people of those nations.

[CNCRaymond]

Originally posted by rextorres:
All I can say it's funny how some people - all of sudden - seem to care about the poor Iraqis.

Where were all these same people during Rwanda, Haiti and Kosovo. They were busy criticizing Clinton for nation building.

As far as I know the war was about WMD. And not about gving my tax dollars to Cheney's chronies at Haliburton.

You must be speaking about the French, Germans, Russians, and those people here in the US that apposed the war.

I have always said, and I recall many others as well saying that this was good for the Iraqi people even before we went to war. So you must be talking about those who opposed the war. Like I said, these people enjoy human suffering, and their motivations are in question as far as I am concerned.

Rex you remind me an awful lot of a guy who called himself Silverlock on another forum. The resemblance of your statements and opinions are uncanny.

[ December 14, 2003, 19:08: Message edited by: CNCRaymond ]

[rextorres]

I was referring to the President himself. In the debates he specifically brought this point up and he criticized Clinton for exactly the same thing he is doing now. Now if others feel attacked by this well I am sorry if pointing this out offends.

Fyron please don't accuse me of Partisan politics. I have never read a single line written by you that strays from mainline Republican policies.

[ December 14, 2003, 19:07: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[CNCRaymond]

Originally posted by rextorres:
I was referring to the President himself. In the debates he specifically brought this point up and he criticized Clinton for exactly the same thing he is doing now. Now if others feel attacked by this well I am sorry if pointing this out offends.

Fyron please don't accuse me of Partisan politics. I have never read a single line written by you that strays from mainline Republican policies.

The President, that is GWB, was referring to the LACK of commitment by then President Clinton. Clinton tied the hands of the military and was not committed to the effort for which he had committed troops.

If you do not believe me, just ask any military or peace keeping officer who was there. They utterly hated Bill Clinton’s politics.

[CNCRaymond]

Originally posted by Unknown_Enemy:

quote:

---

Originally posted by CNCRaymond:
Could someone please explain to me why they think what GWB did was bad?

- Wasting the total and blind sympathy to USA after 09/11 toward worldwide antipathy today.
- Lying about the goals of the second Iraqi war.

In my book, that is enought to write him as an idiot. However, millions of humans who suffered under Saddam will praise this event and be right to do so.
So despite our political differences, let's just rejoice of the arrest of that human beast.

---

Thank you. I do not believe that he is an idiot, but given the way things have turned out, I do believe he knew more than he let on. But again, I think this is a case where the ends did justify the means. One less evil dictator to deal with.

It will be interesting to read the offical CIA reports in 50 years. Man what I would give to be a historian in the latter part of this century.

[Starhawk]

Okay first off Clinton attacked Iraq for no reason with no goals and he had a tendency of starting a war anytime someone found out yet another woman gave him yet another blowjob so that is why he is so easily criticized.

And for the fact that Clinton would stay just long enough and be just dumb enough for the American people to get pissed off and for just enough US troops to die needlesly before he pulled out for no reason such as he did in Bosnia.

Bush went into Afghanistan with a purpose and we won easily, he went into Iraq with a purpose and we defeated the regime and are helping to create a new free nation. Clinton just blew crap up and left the second his sex scandals passed.

I am a Bush supporter yes but I have myself disagreed with SOME of the stuff he's done but not all.

Now as to that other statement about where were the people who cared...easy. The United States was practically threatened by Russia if we went into Iraq on our own, we were also threatened by boycots from the nations like Germany, France, and Switzerland and the rest of the UN were being arrogant airheads that said effectively "as long as they don't bother us let's not bother them" the US couldn't do anything without allies, now that Britain helped us as well thats good but notice that the UN and other allies which said they'd help are putsing about and stalling in the actual deployment of troops or economic aid for Iraq?

[General Woundwort]

Originally posted by oleg:
My critisism was always to the war itself that was illegal, unjustified and directly against US and Europe interests.

1) How many UN resolutions was Hussein in violation of? 17? 19? So what's the threshold for legitimacy? 21?

2) He attempted the assassination of an ex-president back in '95. Is that not a sufficient justification?

3) How is it in the interests of the US (or even Europe if they thought straight) to have an expansionistic madman next door to the world's largest oil reserves? The fact that those reserves are in the hands of fanatical Muslims is bad enough as is.

4) Hussein was directed to give over all materials and records of his WMD programs. He refused. Just who is dumb enough to think that he should have been given the benefit of the doubt?

5) RE: WMD's - I'm still waiting to see if any stockpiles show up in Syria or elsewhere. And just some food for thought... what if any number of WMD depot locations were known before the war - given Hussein's record, might they not be legitimate bombing targets? Hard to gather evidence from a smoldering crater, and "Better safe than sorry..."

Originally posted by oleg:
Saddam had no WMD whatsoever and in fact was a bastion against islamic fanatics.

Both he and those fanatics were/are US enemies, and I'm not yet convinced that they were not in some sort of collusion.

Originally posted by oleg:
I have no idea what will heapen in Iraq and really hope it will emerge as a secular and democratic country. However, it seems more likely to become a violent antiamerican theocracy.

Simple - occuply it until the threat of theocracy passes. We had troops in Germany and Japan for many years for similar reasons. Here I will criticize Bush - we should NOT leave by June. Stay until the job is done.

[rextorres]

Originally posted by CNCRaymond:

quote:

---

Originally posted by rextorres:
I was referring to the President himself. In the debates he specifically brought this point up and he criticized Clinton for exactly the same thing he is doing now. Now if others feel attacked by this well I am sorry if pointing this out offends.

Fyron please don't accuse me of Partisan politics. I have never read a single line written by you that strays from mainline Republican policies.

The President, that is GWB, was referring to the LACK of commitment by then President Clinton. Clinton tied the hands of the military and was not committed to the effort for which he had committed troops.

If you do not believe me, just ask any military or peace keeping officer who was there. They utterly hated Bill Clinton’s politics.

---

I can look up the transcripts of the debate . . . and we can parse words. All I know is that GWB meant that the US should not get involved in any nation building.

What lack of commitment are you talking about - can you be more specific. Kosovo and Haiti were the only adventures that Clinton got us into and they were relative successes.

[ December 14, 2003, 19:56: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[Roanon]

Originally posted by CNCRaymond:
But again, I think this is a case where the ends did justify the means.

This is exactly where I - and I think many other people - disagree. Remember your own words:

We should never stand idle when human rights are being violated, and people are being appressed.

This is a very hypocrite statement if you support actions violating human rights and oppressing people in cases where you think they are "justified". And it is a common ideology I encounter, the alleged motivation by morals, but the fact they rarely care for any other of the numerous dictatorships in the world and put their moral standards aside when it comes to their own actions.

Yes, I am glad that this dictatorship is over. But it had been possible to do it with other means. But that would have meant less profit for Haliburton etc.

You must be speaking about the French, Germans, Russians, and those people here in the US that apposed the war.

Generalizing this way is like I would say that every war supporter is a greedy war profiteer with something like a good job at Haliburton. And this "these people enjoy human suffering" is outrageous and personally offending me.

I utterly despise people who think they are the utmost in moral authority and therefore take it as their god-given right to treat everyone having a different opinion like a piece of ****.