OT: Saddam Hussein Arrested

[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 ****.

[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.