Saddam Arrested

[Legion]

Oh, the war was "illegal", eh? Says who? You peaceniks?

according to international law.

It was completely justified by violations by the Iraqi government.

 

[nelg]

according to international law.

International law as drafted by the U.N. ? Isn’t that the group that designs horses that come out as jack asses.

 

[Legion]

according to international law.

International law as drafted by the U.N. ? Isn’t that the group that designs horses that come out as jack asses.

well put.

Its also an agency comprised of a large portion of tyrannic dictatorships/regimes.

 

[pax]

And who let in all those dictators into the UN...

 

[Legion]

And who let in all those dictators into the UN...

the UN.

 

[pax]

Hhe think again...

 

[ByteMe]

Which countries did the US liberate recently just to remove a ruthless dictator? You have to forgive me, but I must have missed it in the news.


*G*

Germany or Japan or Italy? Afganistan? Kuwait? Korea? Grenada? Panama? Cambodian Civil War? Haiti? Laotian Civil War? Bosnia ? Kosovo? and now Iraq?

Start reading more news.

 

[pax]

Byte it reads more like a lists of dictatorial states the US helped to setup and maintain. That some of the dictators were removed only happened after they turned on the US or were the subject of protracted scrutiny by popular media.

Its good that the US cleans up its messes now. Iraq being one of them. Although it was an unholy risk in that particular case. Risks we cant be sure have been dealt with completely yet. But lets hope that the motivation to remove terrible dictators doesnt end with Iraq and that that motivation proves itself soon. And not after further genocide or other horrors...

 

[Grall]

Grenada, Panama, and Kosovo, man

Jesus friggin christ, Panama and Grenada was fricken ages ago. Anyway, wasn't Panama invaded because general whatsisname tried to seize the canal? Oh, and there was some hoo-haa about drugs too I believe, but that sounds like an excuse to me, after all you never invaded Colombia. Anyway, mentioning south/middle American countries as objects of liberation after the US has done SO MUCH to bring countries in that part of the world under the boot-heel of ruthless dictators and military regimes is more than somewhat conceited, IMO.

Freedom is very important, except when American banana plantations stand on the line of being reclaimed and given back to the people. Then it's OK to overthrow the legally elected government and let a general seize power...

Btw, Kosovo isn't a country (just in case you did not know that, after all it's in some obscure part of the world called Europe, a place few, if any Americans know anything about, and besides, that action was done with the blessing of the UN.

Ah, from the man who said "There are WORSE people than Saddam Hussein still at large out there and the US does NOTHING." Of course if we got rid of Saddam and other WORSE people by going "on a holy crusade to dicratorship countries, invaded them and catched their leaders just to liberate them" then it's O.K. (your words, not mine).

I'm sure that if you bothered to look at my statement in its proper context, it would make a lot more sense.

oh give it a rest with the ati-US rhetoric.

You simply have to forgive me if I chose not to. I'll speak my opinion no matter wether you chose to like it or not, thankyouverymuch.

We havent installed a puppet government

Yes you have.

I cant believe the venom in you peoples voices. Oh, the war was "illegal", eh? Says who? You peaceniks?

Am I to feel insulted by being called "peacenik"? Sounds more like a compliment to me. Peacenik, as opposed to feckin warmongerer.

Please, according to you, the US can do no right.

Sure you could have. If you'd let the weapons inspectors finish their job and waited until the international community agreed military action was the only way out and THEN attacked with the help and support of others, then attacking would have been the right thing to do.

Do you remember the rethoric of the wash. administration before the war? Saddam had WMD, they were an IMMINENT threat, Hans Blix and the weapons inspectors were incompetent since they couldn't find the WMD, we must strike NOW etc etc.

Well DUH, of course they couldn't find the WMD, they knew then already Saddam's WMD capabilities were greatly over-exaggerated, if not outright non-existent. If the weapons inspectors had been allowed to finish and concluded there were no weapons, the basis for an attack would likely have been undermined to the point it could not have been done. Hence the god-awful hurry to go ahead and attack anyway, and then plead for more money and support afterwards.

Okay, so I'm speculating. Compared to Saddam being able to deploy WMD against the west in 40 minutes despite having been spied upon, poked and prodded for over a decade, my speculation doesn't sound too far-fetched.

You dont get it both ways, so STFU.

STFU? You're beyond contempt, making such a comment. Besides, who's gonna stop me, you and what army?


*G*

 

[Legion]

Hhe think again...

Ok, the majority of the UN...

are you trying to imply the US inducted them into the UN?

 

[notAFanB]

Sure you could have. If you'd let the weapons inspectors finish their job and waited until the international community agreed military action was the only way out and THEN attacked with the help and support of others, then attacking would have been the right thing to do.

Grall, if we assume that the Weapons inspectors finished their job but were left inconclusive (let's face it short of marching in there and over turning everyrock in the place), do you really believe the UN would have taken military action?

 

[London Geezer]

Don't really want to get into the antiUS-VS-proUS fight here, but all i can say is:

Anyone noticed Bush's statement... "Such men (terrorists) are a threat to American people, and they will be defeated"

errr... Is America the only country threatened by terrorists?

 

[Legion]

Don't really want to get into the antiUS-VS-proUS fight here, but all i can say is:

Anyone noticed Bush's statement... "Such men (terrorists) are a threat to American people, and they will be defeated"

errr... Is America the only country threatened by terrorists?

It was an address to The people of the US was it not? He's most likely addressing the interests of the American people.

 

[dksuiko]

RIGHT. The US acts only in its own greedy self-interest. Gotta keep those gas-guzzling SUVs rolling somehow! Installing a puppet regime in a middle-eastern country is apparantly a good way to accomplish that in Washington's eyes.

Right! Besides, who's gonna stop us, you and what army?

 

[London Geezer]

Don't really want to get into the antiUS-VS-proUS fight here, but all i can say is:

Anyone noticed Bush's statement... "Such men (terrorists) are a threat to American people, and they will be defeated"

errr... Is America the only country threatened by terrorists?

It was an address to The people of the US was it not? He's most likely addressing the interests of the American people.

It was not the first time... It seems he only addresses the interests of the American people all the time, making decisions that affect the whole world... The fact that not everyone in the world is American doesn't matter does it...

 

[notAFanB]

Don't really want to get into the antiUS-VS-proUS fight here, but all i can say is:

Anyone noticed Bush's statement... "Such men (terrorists) are a threat to American people, and they will be defeated"

errr... Is America the only country threatened by terrorists?

It was an address to The people of the US was it not? He's most likely addressing the interests of the American people.

It was not the first time... It seems he only addresses the interests of the American people all the time, making decisions that affect the whole world... The fact that not everyone in the world is American doesn't matter does it...

imo it is appropriate for him to do so, addressing the world with pretensions of speaking on it's behalf is equally as irritating. But yes the primary concern should be the nation to which one belongs and has been elected (however dubiou that might be) to represent.

 

[London Geezer]

imo it is appropriate for him to do so, addressing the world with pretensions of speaking on it's behalf is equally as irritating. But yes the primary concern should be the nation to which one belongs and has been elected (however dubiou that might be) to represent.

Ok...
So, EXAMPLE:
Jaques Chirac comes out this evening and goes: "It is in the interest of French people to invade Nigeria and rid it of the inhuman muslim treatment of women, we will liberate it from muslim fundamentalists and Nigerian people will be free" (just using Nigeria as an example here, don't jump at my thoat)...

By the Bush's ideals, the fact that france would benefit A LOT from rare mineral reserves in Nigeria wouldn't matter then, like it doesn't matter for the benefit the US (and all allies) will receive from Iraq's oil? Would France be hailed as a world liberator? Would everyone in the world have to be happy, as long as French people's interests are satisfied? Cause that is the impression i get from "the American People".

Not slaying anyone here, just asking to rectify some incoherence that's all.

 

[Grall]

Grall, if we assume that the Weapons inspectors finished their job but were left inconclusive (let's face it short of marching in there and over turning everyrock in the place), do you really believe the UN would have taken military action?

I don't know. I would think they would not (as without a clear indication of an imminate threat, resolutions to attack would likely have been veto'd by Russia and/or China in the security council.

However, if the UN did decide to attack, it would have been a legitimate action, as opposed to the illegal invasion staged by the US and Britain (with some minor help and back-patting from other countries).

That's the crux of the deal. That Saddam was ousted was a good thing, though the way it was done was not. The ends do not justify the means by a long shot, not when the ends could have been achieved a different way.


*G*

 

[pax]

Hhe think again...

Ok, the majority of the UN...

are you trying to imply the US inducted them into the UN?

Absolutely... Every major power had its proteges. And level of brutality wasnt a consideration for application.

 

[notAFanB]

I don't know. I would think they would not (as without a clear indication of an imminate threat, resolutions to attack would likely have been veto'd by Russia and/or China in the security council.

ditto, the UN never had any intention of enforcing anything. the veto scenario is (justifiable) an convinient situation for the UN to stand by and do nothing.

However, if the UN did decide to attack, it would have been a legitimate action, as opposed to the illegal invasion staged by the US and Britain (with some minor help and back-patting from other countries).

The UN feeling it will not launch an unprovoked pre-emptive strike would never have crossed that line.

The ends do not justify the means by a long shot, not when the ends could have been achieved a different way.

meh, being a pessimist I'm not sure how things would have turned out for iraq in the long run.


London-boy:

Jaques Chirac comes out this evening and goes: "It is in the interest of French people to invade Nigeria and rid it of the inhuman muslim treatment of women, we will liberate it from muslim fundamentalists and Nigerian people will be free" (just using Nigeria as an example here, don't jump at my thoat)...

sure

Would France be hailed as a world liberator?

nope.

Would everyone in the world have to be happy, as long as French people's interests are satisfied?

I don't understand this part, can you rephrase?

Not slaying anyone here, just asking to rectify some incoherence that's all.

to wit, the interests of the people whom he/she is elected to represent lay foremost and are not mutually exclusive from sharing a common bond with the rest of humanity. Nor however is it a pre-requisite as such.