Saddam Arrested

[Clashman]

for the record (and to avoid a pssing match), can someone explain to me the original aims of sanctions versus their actual effectiveness?

In a perfect world, sanctions are supposed to scare country leaders away. In the real world, they only hurt the people, while the leaders have it very easy in their palaces at the expense of the people (not like one needs a Nobel Prize for Quantum Physics to realise that beforehand).

That is, to put it simply...

I don't agree with that completely. It depends on the severity of the sanctions as well as the type of economy you're trying to attack.

The Iraqi sanctions were the most sever and far-reaching in history. Basically every aspect of the economy became controlled by the U.N. And this came directly after two crippling wars, precisely when infrastructure needed to be rebuilt and improved upon.

The sanctions in South Africa were much less restrictive, didn't come immediately after wartime, (at least nothing as severe as what happened in Iraq), and in the end did have an effect in encouraging civilian and political elites that they were not going to continue making shitloads of money off the backs of Africans.

 

[London Geezer]

It legally invaded Iraq. Iraq had been in violation of various resolutions of the UN security council for some time.

Then why does it not invade Israel, which breached around 40 UN resolutions? Oh wait don't answer that...

 

[Legion]

I don't think I need to demonstrate your hypocrisy further on this point...

drop the posturing. You dodn't have an argument to start with. Half the quotes from the page associate all terrorist activities as equally wrong not. They weren't stating Saddam was involved with the AQ.

THe Other half are more than likely true. Saddam has had a hitory of training terrorist troops some i am sure were AQ or become AQ. Being that is so i would state Saddam has AQ connections.

As far as acting within Iraq i don't see how you can argue against it. If Saddam had been training terrorist troops how can you say they terrorists groops haven't been acting inside of the nation?

When will the US invade Israel, who has been in violation of Security Council resolutions since 1967 ?

No it has been in violation of General Assembly resolutions. The bulk of all resolutions being purely political in nature.

I am little curious asto why you haven't justified your oil argument. Do you think being on the attack will get you off the hook for prposing a patently absurd notion? How can anyone look at all those resolutions and take them seriously? How many have been made of israel's terrorist opposition? Can you name one damn resolution? If anything those resolutions are nothing more than the reflection of anti-israel bias amongst the nations of the UN's general assembly.

 

[London Geezer]

No it has been in violation of General Assembly resolutions. The bulk of all resolutions being purely political in nature.

Of course they would be, wouldn't they, Legion...

 

[Legion]

It legally invaded Iraq. Iraq had been in violation of various resolutions of the UN security council for some time.

Then why does it not invade Israel, which breached around 40 UN resolutions? Oh wait don't answer that...

If they were inbreach of security resolutions which allowed for them to be attack (depending on the what the resolution stated) they be justified for invading Israel as the US was justified in invading Iraq.

However, if israel is infact in violation of resolutions justifying invasion why hasn't anyone bothered to attempt it?

 

[Legion]

Of course they would be, wouldn't they, Legion...

It appeared to me most of them repeated themselves over and over again. Also looking at the matter objectively leaves me rather confused. Where are the resolutions against Hamas, terrorism, and palestinian terror bombing.

 

[Clashman]

In fact it was.

Oh, how so? Because you assume Hitler would eventually try to take over the world?

However, a few too many of our business leaders were fighting on the other side.

You mean to say they sold them products the Nazi's purchased. Their choice.

Can you see any reason at the time they shouldn't have done this?

Including the grandfather of a certain current president of the United States.

How was he "fighting" for the other side?

Above and beyond selling equiptment to the Nazis before WWII, (and more so the Italians. I think many U.S. business leaders were greater fans of the Italian fascists than the German ones), Prescott Bush and his Union Banking Corporation continued to deal with the Nazis after Pearl Harbor. In 1942, the U.S. government froze their Nazi assetts under the trading with the Enemy act, (although allowing them to continue with their normal business operations). There was also a plot in 1933 to overthrow Roosevelt and install a fascist state. It was financed by some of the richest people on Wall Street, and was ultimately undone when the General they approached to carry out the coup, (Smedly Butler), blew the whistle on the operation.

People like Henry Ford, John D. Rockefeller, and many others were fans of Hitler and Mussolini until it evidence of the Holocaust was made public, and they were no longer defensible.

 

[London Geezer]

However, if israel is infact in violation of resolutions justifying invasion why hasn't anyone bothered to attempt it?

Maybe because they're so far up the USA's a$$ that no one even dares? And even then, when was the last time a country that wasn't the USA invaded another country for UN related matters?
The USA will never invade a country that is such a good ally to them. I thought that was obvious...

 

[Legion]

Above and beyond selling equiptment to the Nazis before WWII, (and more so the Italians. I think many U.S. business leaders were greater fans of the Italian fascists than the German ones), Prescott Bush and his Union Banking Corporation continued to deal with the Nazis after Pearl Harbor.

Ok, if Germany had attacked at Pearl Harbor do you think he would have continued?

Again at the time, do you think anyone was really aware of what the Nazis were doing?

Before WWII what would have been wrong with selling goods to the Nazis who were buyers?

It seems to me that you are only speaking with hindsight knowing now what the Nazis were doing which could not have been known then.

What barings does this have of GWB Clashman?

In 1942, the U.S. government froze their Nazi assetts under the trading with the Enemy act, (although allowing them to continue with their normal business operations). There was also a plot in 1933 to overthrow Roosevelt and install a fascist state. It was financed by some of the richest people on Wall Street, and was ultimately undone when the General they approached to carry out the coup, (Smedly Butler), blew the whistle on the operation.

Interesting, but why are you choosing to recite this information? Do you believe GWB to be a nazi simpathist?

People like Henry Ford, John D. Rockefeller, and many others were fans of Hitler and Mussolini until it evidence of the Holocaust was made public, and they were no longer defensible.

Which why i question what would have been wrong with trading with the Nazi's before WWII. No one would have known about what happened nor were they our enemy. Likewise nor was it our war.

 

[Legion]

Maybe because they're so far up the USA's a$$ that no one even dares?

Or maybe they are apathetic...? Noting how far the UN has its head up its ass over many dictatorships within the UN alone speaks volumes about their willingness to uphold UN values.

Perhaps they realize the resolutions are bullshit?

And even then, when was the last time a country that wasn't the USA invaded another country for UN related matters?

How many times should a country have been invaded for human rights violations and wasn't while the UN sat on their fat asses?

The USA will never invade a country that is such a good ally to them. I thought that was obvious...

.....uh common sense? Especially not when the assertions against the ally are bullshit.

 

[CorwinB]

No it has been in violation of General Assembly resolutions. The bulk of all resolutions being purely political in nature.

You won't object if I call out your bluff, I hope...

http://www.un.org/documents/sc/res/1967/scres67.htm
(click for resolution 242)
http://www.un.org/documents/sc/res/1978/scres78.htm
(click for resolution 425)

There are others...

You dodn't have an argument to start with.

Excuse me ? You said "As far as AL quaida is concerned you'll have to show me where it was suggested they were linked." I provided a vast collection of quotes not only suggesting, but right out saying that the connection exists, while it actually doesn't according to all intelligence officials. And I'm the one not having an argument ?

Edited out for correcting links

 

[London Geezer]

Especially not when the assertions against the ally are bullshit.

Discussing with you is like filling a checklist....

Iraq bombing is ok... CHECK
Israel defense is ok.... CHECK
Kyoto is bullshit.... CHECK

:|

How are they bullshit, Legion? How is accusing them of illegally invading and occupying a country that was created by the UN/USA in order to sort some of the middle east crap out, considered bullshit? How is breaching tens of UN resolutions considered bullshit?

Come on, Legion, you cannot possibly defend everything the USA is involved into. You cannot possibly be that nationalist...

 

[Legion]

You won't object if I call out your bluff, I hope...

http://daccess-ods.un.org/TMP/9205263.html
http://daccess-ods.un.org/TMP/2741979.html

There are others...

You mean i won't object to your bluff after posting to webpages with 404s.

Excuse me ? You said "As far as AL quaida is concerned you'll have to show me where it was suggested they were linked."

You are excused.

What i suggested to you was reasoning we invaded them because of AQ ties rather than their support of terrorism.

I provided a vast collection of quotes not only suggesting,

You provided me with a vast collection of assertions AQ was no different from other terrorist groups as well evidence Iraq had terrorist ties wrt to training troops.

but right out saying that the connection exists, while it actually doesn't according to all intelligence officials. And I'm the one not having an argument ?

Really? All intelligence officials have said Iraq hasn't support terrorist groups in the past? Care to show me a link that suggest this assertion?

BTW are you going to validate your absurd oil argument? If not i'll just assume you are quack like the rest of your indymedia ilk.

 

[Legion]

Discussing with you is like filling a checklist....

Iraq bombing is ok... CHECK
Israel defense is ok.... CHECK
Kyoto is bullshit.... CHECK

THe Kyoto treaty was not based on sound science London. This is why i agree with not signing it.

How are they bullshit, Legion? How is accusing them of illegally invading and occupying a country that was created by the UN/USA in order to sort some of the middle east crap out, considered bullshit? How is breaching tens of UN resolutions considered bullshit?

Lets look at it this way:

There are dozens of resolutions against Israel (General Assembly) but where are all of those who should be against Hamas among other terrorist and the Palestinian support of terrorism in Israel? Curious? I am too.

These were generally assembly resolutions if i recall many of those repeat themselves (ie double jeopardy). Shall we look at the board who enacted these toothless resolutions? to what did they apply? I am sure you'll find this enlightening.

Come on, Legion, you cannot possibly defend everything the USA is involved into. You cannot possibly be that nationalist...

Nor could i possibly defend GA resolutions against Israel when they refuse to provide resolutions against Israel's opposition.

 

[Clashman]

Ok, if Germany had attacked at Pearl Harbor do you think he would have continued?

You gotta be fucking kidding me. We were AT WAR. How much more wrong can you be on this?

Again at the time, do you think anyone was really aware of what the Nazis were doing?

Have you seen 'Amen'? If not, (and I suspect not), I would suggest searching it out.

Before WWII what would have been wrong with selling goods to the Nazis who were buyers?

Last I checked the Holocaust wasn't the only reason to oppose fascism. They had that whole 'racial purity' thing going. Not to mention they were terrorist states, relying on disappearances, beatings, and murder to maintain their power. Yeah, what's wrong with that Legion?

Interesting, but why are you choosing to recite this information? Do you believe GWB to be a nazi simpathist?

No, but his family was. I believe we are moving further and further away from a representative state and closer to an authoritarian one, in part because of changes enacted during the present administration, (which I'll grant Bush himself probably does not have a complete grasp upon).

Which why i question what would have been wrong with trading with the Nazi's before WWII. No one would have known about what happened nor were they our enemy. Likewise nor was it our war.

See above reply on why there are more reasons to oppose fascism than simply the Holocaust.

Jeebus'. Perhaps we should rename this thread 'In Defense Of Fascism' by Legion. I can't believe anyone would go so far to defend this insanity.

 

[Legion]

You gotta be fucking kidding me. We were AT WAR. How much more wrong can you be on this?

I think there is a clear nationalism reason for why they wouldn't sell to the japanese rather than the germans. If the germans had attacked they may have cut off trade with germany for at leat public image concerns.

Clashman i think we both agree that trading with the nazis was wrong but only after the fact.

What does any of this have to do with the topic at hand though?

It wasn't America's war before WWII. You have substantiated, before our involvment, why it was.

Have you seen 'Amen'? If not, (and I suspect not), I would suggest searching it out.

You propose this "amen" explains thats everyone around the world knew what the Nazis were doing? I really must see this as i have never heard this notion even proposed by historians.

Last I checked the Holocaust wasn't the only reason to oppose fascism.

In our more modern world it happens everyday. THe UN silently conding fascism' existance is a good example of this.

I doubt anyone who were selling to the Nazi's were thinking about this. Perhaps they viewed the Hitlerian fascism as anti german propaganda. Perhaps they felt it was germany's way of getting back at England and France for what they did to them after WWI. Maybe they just didn't care. Maybe they even agree with fascism Clashman! There are plenty of socialists and communists today though many view both systems as forms of fascism.

They had that whole 'racial purity' thing going.

So what? many political groups through europe's history have do this.

I don't think i'd take their propaganda seriously either. Germany has had a long history of racism.

Not to mention they were terrorist states, relying on disappearances, beatings, and murder to maintain their power. Yeah, what's wrong with that Legion?

who would have known about this? DO you think this was common knowledge?

No, but his family was.

and Kennedy family were rum/gin/alcohol runners for the mofia...whats your point? Should i blame Bush for what happened in the past?

I believe we are moving further and further away from a representative state and closer to an authoritarian one, in part because of changes enacted during the present administration, (which I'll grant Bush himself probably does not have a complete grasp upon).

Sounds to me you are reading to many indymedia posts.

What does this have to do with the original topic though?

Clashman, am i to assume from what you have posted you assert this government has become more fascist esque because of Bush's family ties to the Nazi's in the past? I can't possibly see why in inserted these comments about Bush's family being that they have little to do with the topic of our discussion later to insert your feelings about our modern government.

Jeebus'. Perhaps we should rename this thread 'In Defense Of Fascism' by Legion. I can't believe anyone would go so far to defend this insanity.

Clashman its rather obvious no one had the full grasp of what Hitler was doing. Besides plenty of nations condone "tyranny" today. This is really an argument on a case to case basis. If you asked me if it were alright to trade with the Nazi assuming i knew all about their practices i would provide you a definate "No." However if i were asked whether i'd trade with evil Israeli's or the infamous terrorist and brutal dictator Robert Mugabe i'd say "it seems fine, but you ought to do some research into where your products are going to be use and what they will be used for."

How am i defending fascism? I don't recall defending it. I recall stating i see nothing wrong with conducing trade with willing buyers who aren't our enemy. Any rationalizations we make of the nazis comes way after the fact in an era when we know pretty much all there is to know about them. Hense the reason i can see why people will trade with China today though its clearly a fascist state.

 

[CorwinB]

You mean i won't object to your bluff after posting to webpages with 404s.

Links corrected. Those are resolutions 242 and 425 from Security Council asking Israel to withdraw from occupied territories. And there are others. Here goes your absurd argument about no resolutions from Security Council condaming Israel.

You are excused.

What i suggested to you was reasoning we invaded them because of AQ ties rather than their support of terrorism.

Did, or did not, GWB say about Hussein "This is a man with Al Quaida connections" in order to justify invading Iraq ?

You provided me with a vast collection of assertions AQ was no different from other terrorist groups as well evidence Iraq had terrorist ties wrt to training troops.

You asked for quotes from officials saying Al Quaida had ties with Hussein. I did provide them.

Really? All intelligence officials have said Iraq hasn't support terrorist groups in the past? Care to show me a link that suggest this assertion?

How convenient of you to use either "Al Quaida" or "terrorism" whenever you see fit. Your original quote was not about terrorism but "As far as AL quaida is concerned you'll have to show me where it was suggested they were linked."

 

[Legion]

Links corrected. Those are resolutions 242 and 425 from Security Council asking Israel to withdraw from occupied territories. And there are others. Here goes your absurd argument about no resolutions from Security Council condaming Israel.

No, i stated i believe they were all GA resolutions. I wasn't sure. Though i am positive the bulk of them are.

My argument is not absurd infact. It actually reduced your 40 some odd resolutions to only a few you are mentioning. It is your arguments which are infact, absolutely ridiculous. Here are reasons why:

There are terms for which both these resolutions must be met. Israel has been moving out of the "occupied" terroritories so they can go back to be occupied terroritories of Jordan, Egypt and Syria. They haven't moved out of the westbank fully no doubt to tenents of the resolutions not being met.

Resolution 242 was enacted in November 22 1967. Israel has clearly sought to respect it by returning the "occupied" terroritories to arab states who occupied them before. Granting the resolution demand that the west bank be returned to the Jordan isn't even an issue warranting being obeyed as today palestinian statism is the new propaganda front.

I could se ewhy Israel has been agaisnt returning the west bank to its previous captor Jordan. First off asking Israel to return the westbank to Jordan is a double standard, secondly there are security issues present in doing so. WIth the rise of Arab terrrorism we can see just why the Israeli's then were so concerned.

resolution 425 has to do with Irael and Lebanon which was enacted march 19th 1978. Israel is no longer at war with Lebanon Corwin...

Yeah, maybe we should invade Israel because of the Lebanon conflict and for holding land which was illegally owned by Jordan. Yep, clearly rational.

WHich leads me to the point certain resolutions call for certain meassure if they are broken...

btw did you ever find any resolutions against Hamas, PLO, or the palestinian support of terrorism?

Did, or did not, GWB say about Hussein "This is a man with Al Quaida connections" in order to justify invading Iraq ?

Yes he did state he had AQ connections which is perfectly justifiable by Saddam's support of local terrorist groups. However if we read all of Bush's quotes we are left to assume Saddam's support of terrorism rather than AQ was one of many issues to remove Saddam.

You asked for quotes from officials saying Al Quaida had ties with Hussein. I did provide them.

Which appears to be a rather meaningless gesture on your part as it serves to prove nothing other than to provide only one of the groups Saddam supported.

How convenient of you to use either "Al Quaida" or "terrorism" whenever you see fit.

How convient of you to make assertions you won't ever validate. Do you seriously expect me to believe all intelligence officials disagreed with Iraq's WMD or terrorist support? Do you really expect me not to request of you a validation for you absurd oil argument? Do you really expect me not to realize you haven't responded to the bulk of my response to you acussations? Come on.

But if i remember clearly, you did bring up the issue of believing in something inlight of all evidence to the contrary.

Your original quote was not about terrorism but "As far as AL quaida is concerned you'll have to show me where it was suggested they were linked."

Corwin, they didn't suggest we should attack them because AQ was their sould terrorist supported group. Infact many of the mention the support of terrorism and not just AQ.

 

[Natoma]

CorwinB:

Frankly I find this page more interesting: http://lunaville.com/wmd/billmon.aspx

Notice the steady progression from "We KNOW he's got weapons of mass destruction and we KNOW where to find them" to "Well we KNOW he had a weapons program and we'll find them eventually" to "Well they're there somewhere. It'll just take time."

And all of this could have been avoided if we had given the weapons inspectors a chance to complete their jobs. But oh wells.

p.s.: Legion, how in the world can you honestly say that there was nothing wrong with doing business with the Germans after Pearl Harbor?

The Germans were allied with the very people who caused the deaths of thousands of americans at Pearl Harbor, and were actively engaged in battle to destroy democracy, i.e. our way of life.

You seem to believe Iraq had close ties with Al-Qaeda. Under that pretense, would it be right for Jeb Bush to do business with Saddam Hussein after 9/11, because Iraq didn't directly attack us?

 

[Clashman]

Clashman i think we both agree that trading with the nazis was wrong but only after the fact.

Try telling that to any of your Jewish friends. Especially if you happen to know any who were around before WWII and could tell you what the German treatment of Jews then was like. Or the Spanish. Or the Ethiopians.

What does any of this have to do with the topic at hand though?

It's not. It's a side topic. Initiated by yourself, I might add.

It wasn't America's war before WWII. You have substantiated, before our involvment, why it was.

It was our war, because numerous political and business elites were actively involved in supporting fascism, Hitler, and Mussolini.

You propose this "amen" explains thats everyone around the world knew what the Nazis were doing? I really must see this as i have never heard this notion even proposed by historians.

Here's some news for you: Anne Coulter is not a historian. It's not that everyone knew what was going on. But many in fact did, enough that it could have been stopped before it came to what it did.

I doubt anyone who were selling to the Nazi's were thinking about this. Perhaps they viewed the Hitlerian fascism as anti german propaganda. Perhaps they felt it was germany's way of getting back at England and France for what they did to them after WWI. Maybe they just didn't care. Maybe they even agree with fascism Clashman! There are plenty of socialists and communists today though many view both systems as forms of fascism.

What are you talking about? Seriously, this paragraph was all over the place. Plenty of political elites in this country, including Prescott Bush, wanted the German and Italian fascists to win WWII, and aspired to something similar here. It was only after the atrocities became indefensible that they backed down.

So what? many political groups through europe's history have do this.

I don't think i'd take their propaganda seriously either. Germany has had a long history of racism.

It's not just 'propaganda' when the groups discussed had unquestionable control over the countries they were in.

who would have known about this? DO you think this was common knowledge?

Yes. In fact it was common knowledge. There is a reason why the 1936 Olympic games were the most boycotted in history. But frankly, that's what American business elites liked about fascism. There's nothing more satisfying than being able to take out those union leaders with complete and total impunity.

Sounds to me you are reading to many indymedia posts.

What does this have to do with the original topic though?

Clashman, am i to assume from what you have posted you assert this government has become more fascist esque because of Bush's family ties to the Nazi's in the past? I can't possibly see why in inserted these comments about Bush's family being that they have little to do with the topic of our discussion later to insert your feelings about our modern government.

The government is becoming less representative as a result of the concentration of power into the executive, the diminishment of the legislative branch, increasing attempts to prevent 3rd parties from being represented or even allowed to debate in major campaigns, and the abilities of corporations and special interest groups to not only influence elections but also the policy and legislation enacted after they are over. Can you show me in what ways we are becoming more democratic?

Clashman its rather obvious no one had the full grasp of what Hitler was doing.

So I suppose it would have been OK if we just had Mussolini?

If you asked me if it were alright to trade with the Nazi assuming i knew all about their practices i would provide you a definate "No."

As I've already pointed out many people already knew about the actions of the Nazis and Italians. So is it wrong? Or is the Holocaust, (which people did know about anyways), the only 'wrong' thing fascists have ever done.

I recall stating i see nothing wrong with conducing trade with willing buyers who aren't our enemy.

So how about Saddam Hussein? We didn't go to war with Iraq until 1991, so was it OK before then to sell him Anthrax? Or should that have stopped after it was shown that he was using chemical and biological weapons on Iran, (it didn't), or after Halabja (it didn't then, either)?