OT: Saddam Hussein Arrested

[Alneyan]

Woundwort, would you have by any chance a link about this assassination attempt you mentioned? I admit I never heard about this, no wonder given the location I am living in. Obviously I don't doubt your word, but I would like some details about this. Thanks in advance!

Actually, I believe Oleg was partially right. The war in Irak might have threatened the interests of an European country, France. France may have had some access to one of the pipelines in Irak, even during the economical blockage on Irak. There were some articles in France about this topic a few months ago, but of course, it would be hard to make sure of the truth beyond these articles.

About the violations of UN resolutions by Iraq: actually a few countries broke or failed to respect these resolutions more often than Iraq. So this cannot be used as a reason to explain the war , unless you would want to be involved military in other areas as well. However, these violations are not usually even considered, and few if not no action are taken in regard to these countries. It doesn't help the credibility of the UN, but this is a whole different topic.

[ December 14, 2003, 20:01: Message edited by: Alneyan ]

[sachmo]

Saddam is far and away a bigger bastard than Bin Laden. And the world is going to find out just how big of a bastard he is once the trial starts. They may not believe it, but the facts will be there.

[Fyron]

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.

Interesting. Seeing as I disagree with half (or more) of the mainline Republican policies, I don't see how that is the case.

[CNCRaymond]

Originally posted by rextorres:

quote:

---

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.

---

By all means look up the transcript. The lack of commitment that I am refering to is the fact that President Clinton would send troops, but the tie there hands politically so that they could do nothing to stop the atrocities they were witnessing. Again, just ask those who were there, and they will all tell you that they could have done more, but were prevented from doing so.

As far as nation building goes, Clinton did not declare war upon those nation, and did not send in troops to conquer them. With Iraq, we did conquer them, therefore under the articles of war, we must assist them in rebuilding.

Not to discount your views, but you have a lot to learn about how to communicate with poeple. You are far to argumentative and to me you appear to be out looking for a fight to justify your point of view. Just discuss the topic, don't declar war over it.

[dogscoff]

Could someone please explain to me why they think what GWB did was bad? I mean as I see it, he ended a system of government that was both corrupt and a threat to continued world security.

He strated this war not to free the Iraqi ppl, but for his own purposes. Why do I believe this?

1> That was not the stated goal from the start. WMD were not even the stated purpose from the start.

2>after the fall of baghdad the coalition didn't seem to give a toss about restoring order. They did nothing to stop the looting and destruction of hospitals, universities, police stations, religious buildings, ministries (oh, except the ministry of oil, that one was well guarded). They had no-one to police the streets except combat troops with absolutely no training or experience of that kind of work. I've seen footage of coalition troops 'policing' Baghdad, and believe me it's not nice.

3> Too much of the rebuilding money is being funnelled towards Bush and his cronies via Halliburton et al. It stinks. Shouldn't all those Iraqi enginneers and contractors (The ones who did an astonishing job rebuilding after the '91 war) get the jobs? It's their country, their money and their economy.

you would say Sadaam was convicted of beating his wife, not simply suspected or threatening to do so.

The one thing ppl seem to have missed from this metaphor is that Saddam has been convicted by the legal system, put under parole and broken parole and everything else, which is fair enough, but then who goes and enforces the law? The police? No. The big, ugly, amphetamine freak down the road with the tattoos, collection of knuckledusters and (inexplicably) a slick British lawyer being used as a suppository.

What Saddom has to say during his interrogation could disrupt the governments of several countries... I doubt that France, Germany and Russia

I hope he also mentions who armed him to invade Iran back in the 80s... Bush and Blair are only too quick to take every opportunity to criticise him for "threatening his neighbours"

In summary:
Yes, he had to go, and yes, a war was probably the only way it was going to happen, but a honest, open war waged for the right reasons and with proper planning for what comes after.

But it's too late now, they've done it their way, and now they can deflect our attention away from the bits they don't want us to see, crow triumphantly over the rest and move onto the next one.

[geoschmo]

Originally posted by rextorres:
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.

Uhhh, Somalia? That was such an utter debacle they made a movie about it.

Eight years of talking tough with Afganistan, and not doing anything more then lobbing an occasional cruise missle. That's exactly what people mean when they say a lack of commitment.

Haiti was a military success. How could it not be? Haiti was probably the only country in the world capable of putting up less of a fight then Grenada. But the operation was a failure in it's main objective, which was to detract attention from the Presidential daliances.

Geoschmo

[CNCRaymond]

Originally posted by Roanon:

quote:

---

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 ****.

---

First, I do not believe what I said to be hipocritical. I think that you are distorting what I did say to fit your counter argument.

And I could careless if I have offended you. Your tone with me is far more offensive than anything I said. If you want to get down to brass tax over this, then what I said lacked a couple of words that would make it more politically correct for those with sensative eyes. So allow me to clarify my word as not to seem like a "moral authority" out to "treat everyone having a different opinion like a piece of ****" to use your words. (NOTE: I find your editorial comments to lack both credibility and professionalism.)

Oh kind sir, you must be speaking about those noble honest free loving French, Germans, Russians, and american people who justly opposed the vile George W. Bush and his genicidal war against the inocent and humbly kind leader of Iraq, Saddam.

How was that Roanon? Does that meet with your approval and opinion??

What I posted was no more or less right or wrong than what has been posted before by others. If you take me to task on what I say, I will do the same to you. That being said, I believe you owe me an apology.

[ December 14, 2003, 20:40: Message edited by: CNCRaymond ]

[rextorres]

Originally posted by geoschmo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by rextorres:
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.

Uhhh, Somalia? That was such an utter debacle they made a movie about it.

Eight years of talking tough with Afganistan, and not doing anything more then lobbing an occasional cruise missle. That's exactly what people mean when they say a lack of commitment.

Haiti was a military success. How could it not be? Haiti was probably the only country in the world capable of putting up less of a fight then Grenada. But the operation was a failure in it's main objective, which was to detract attention from the Presidential daliances.

Geoschmo

---

Bush senior got us into Somalia.

[ December 14, 2003, 21:11: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[rextorres]

[quote]Originally posted by CNCRaymond:

Not to discount your views, but you have a lot to learn about how to communicate with poeple. You are far to argumentative and to me you appear to be out looking for a fight to justify your point of view. Just discuss the topic, don't declar war over it.

I think that's unfair. I've staked out a position and you merely disagree with it. When you disagree with my position it's discussion when I refute your position it's argumentative.

Still I have not attacked anyone. On the other hand you've gone out of your way twice to mention me and Fyron even called me "partisan" because he disagrees with all my postitions but of course he not a partisan - anyway Loser specifically asked for my opinions.

And yes I do believe Bush lied - no WMD have been found.

[ December 14, 2003, 21:10: Message edited by: rextorres ]

[Roanon]

Originally posted by CNCRaymond:
What I posted was no more or less right or wrong than what has been posted before by others. If you take me to task on what I say, I will do the same to you. That being said, I believe you owe me an apology.

Well I think it was less right, but this is not the main point. You are personally attacking people just disagreeing with you and offending them. You even openly admit that you don't care if you do. There is someone here who owes some people an apology, Mr. I-am-the-moral-universe.

BTW, I do not care for political correctness. A hypocrite is a hypocrite, regardless how he puts his words. Implying I would do is another insult.