Saddam Arrested

[London Geezer]

Would France be hailed as a world liberator?

nope.

Why not? Because it's France and not the USA?

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?

I'm talking about the fact that Bush seems to be addressing the interests of American people, and expect everyone to obey/accept his decisions, which are in the interest of the American people. So, if the same kind of behaviour comes from another country (EG: France govt which would want to safeguard the interest of the French people), would everyone in the world obey/accept the decisions made, like everyone is expected to do with decisions made by the USA govt? Especially, would the American people accept it?

 

[notAFanB]

Why not? Because it's France and not the USA?

no, because the USA is no universally hailed as a liberator.

would everyone in the world obey/accept the decisions made, like everyone is expected to do with decisions made by the USA govt?

no-one is expected to to obey the decisions of another nation. accepting and making the choice of how to respond is up to the nation in question.

as the UN has shown disagreement creates tension and division but it is to be expected.

Especially, would the American people accept it?

they may choose not to.

 

[jandar]

Im happy that Bastard Saddam is captured.

Im glad the US and UK went after Saddam and OBL.

Im glad that other countries put their foot in their mouths. (France, Germany, Russia had more to gain by keeping Saddam in power)




but what this all comes down too is this:

US does nothing, they get bashed.
US intervenes, they get bashed.

a lot of European people have long held anti-us views. And those that still do: FU.

Maybe its the fact that we have always had free speech and will since the late 1700's. Maybe its our high GDP and that if our economy tanked, it would hurt the rest of the world. Maybe its because we are the only superpower left.

Whatever it is, so be it. Bash all you want. Ill sleep at night, work during the day content in the fact that at least my Government is trying to take out the bad guys and not relying on a pansied ass UN to do its job.

Its funny, since we have Iraqs here in Florida cheering that Saddam is gone. We have devout Muslims, Jews, Catholics all living side by side not causing a single issue.

 

[London Geezer]

Whatever it is, so be it. Bash all you want. Ill sleep at night, work during the day content in the fact that at least my Government is trying to take out the bad guys and not relying on a pansied ass UN to do its job.

Why? Do you think i spend all day bashing the USA? Do you think i don't sleep, eat or work because i'm too busy bashing the USA?

Its funny, since we have Iraqs here in Florida cheering that Saddam is gone. We have devout Muslims, Jews, Catholics all living side by side not causing a single issue.

Your point?


notAfanB, i had a LOOONG reply ready for you but my system crashed, will post a shortened version in a bit...

 

[Natoma]

Unfortunately Jandar, our government pushed us into this war without the backing of the world community based on evidence that had not been completely vetted through the weapons inspection process. We went to war because of WMD. Our government couldn't wait for the UN Weapons Inspection Process to complete, went in on its own basically, and found out for themselves that no WMD (to date), exists. Considering that was the reason we went to war, it would be "nice" if it turned out to be true no?

Or is the bait and switch ok because we got rid of the bad bad man? I've said it before. If we're going to live in an age of Unilateralist Pre-Emptive wars, we need to make sure our evidence is completely solid and backed up with much proof. The evidence in this case was neither solid nor backed up with much proof. This does not bode well for the next time we need to take out a threat does it? The story of the boy who cried wolf and all that?

 

[Legion]

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

Of course, hense the complete political invalidation of the agency outside of commerce concerns.

 

[notAFanB]

notAfanB, i had a LOOONG reply ready for you but my system crashed, will post a shortened version in a bit...

great stuff...

 

[London Geezer]

notAfanB, i had a LOOONG reply ready for you but my system crashed, will post a shortened version in a bit...

great stuff...

Hate it when that happens...

Anyway,

The impression we get here is that everyone MUST follow Bush in his crusade, and although it might not be true, that's the impression he gives, and is that not the most important issue here?

One of the reasons why he is so hated around the globe, especially here in good old britain, is because of the stupid things he says and how he says them.

The "they are a threat to the American people" statemente is one of many. He wants to be hailed as the world liberator, however he tries to liberate the world of evil in very questionable ways (cowboy ways should i say) and the most worrying part is that he does so for the interest of the American people, NOT in the interest of the world he tries to liberate.

The way we went to war is just plain dodgy. First it was because Saddam has WMD. When we couldn't find them, we changed the story, so it became "because we have to rid the country of that evil that is Saddam". Fair enough. THEN it became "because we have to rid the country of muslim extremists that treat women like subhumans". Fair enough.
But all this is just plain dodgy.
It just felt like we went to war for reasons that were never made public, then wrapped it with a layer of excuses that would sound good enough for the people. Shame that not everyone is as mentally impaired as Mr Bush and Mr Blair think we are. I really felt sorry for Mr Blair. He HAD to follow Bush whether he liked it or not, many times having to "patch things up" for some stupid things said or done by Bush. And to this day, we will never know whether the UK followed the US out of general acceptance of ideals, or out of simple economics. Mr Blair is one hell of an actor, he certainly can talk the public into following him much better than Mr Bush does, therefore we will never know whether he actually followed Bush because he believed in what he believed or just because he HAD to.

(The original post was a bit longer, it will come back to me in due time)

 

[Sxotty]

The stupidity quotient is increasing.

 

[London Geezer]

Increasing? Lord, how much worse will it get then...

 

[Natoma]

I just can't get upset anymore. To far too many people here, war is fine and can be started for any reason whatsoever as long as we get the evil doer.

"Well we didn't find any WMD and sure that was the reason we went into Iraq and started this war, but we got the evil doer, so the it's ok with me."

And the funny thing is, some of these same people will be in an ATI/NVIDIA thread demonizing Nvidia for not fulfilling what it said it would do in any topic, or massaging the truth about certain situations. One is dealing with life and death and should receive that level of scrutiny. The other is dealing with a damn videocard company.

Maddening........

 

[London Geezer]

And the funny thing is, some of these same people will be in an ATI/NVIDIA thread demonizing Nvidia for not fulfilling what it said it would do in any topic, or massaging the truth about certain situations. One is dealing with life and death and should receive that level of scrutiny. The other is dealing with a damn videocard company.

Maddening........

So true...

"Let's write a 5000 word post wishing Nvidia's death for not keeping their word and only putting 4 VS instead of 8 in the latest NVx0, then let's go onto the General Discussion board and justify how Bush+Blair did not keep their word on a WAR in which civilians, people like me and u, DIED..."

Goes to show the priorities, the mentality and the beliefs of certain people who in the end are no different from those simpletons who shot their machineguns at the sky for a birthday party in [put name of middle-east country here]...

 

[RussSchultz]

I just can't get upset anymore. To far too many people here, war is fine and can be started for any reason whatsoever as long as we get the evil doer.

"Well we didn't find any WMD and sure that was the reason we went into Iraq and started this war, but we got the evil doer, so the it's ok with me."

Well, for me, I think the humanitarian aspects of the war make it completely justified.

Whether or not YOU only supported the war for WMD reasoning, I recognized it as justifiable for humanitarian reasons alone, though the national security aspects make it more compelling.

I'm sure if asked about the reasoning why "we" went to war, "we" would have answers that covered the entire gamut as to why "we" supported the action. Even more so if you asked "we" about what would make conflict, in general, justifiable.

Remember, this isn't a "ends justify the means" argument. We're not arguing about the means, we're arguing about the justification.

And, I think if you examine speeches, etc of the administration with a clear and encompassing view, they did not, as you insist, focus entirely on WMD as a reasoning. They certainly didn't pitch it as a completely humanitarian aspect, but its wasn't all WMD.

 

[Natoma]

Ok I acquiesce. it wasn't 100% WMD. It was 90/10.

Look, you know as well as I do that the american public, and I say this without the slightest bit of sarcasm, would never have gone along with a war that sent 150,000+ troops into combat, hundreds of casualties, and has cost us at least $200 Billion, for humanitarian purposes alone. You saw how reticent we were to send a couple of hundred troops into Liberia, earlier this year, when that was *clearly* a humanitarian effort only right? That is a drop in the bucket compared with Iraq.

If you remember all of the polls at the beginning of the year from various sources, the sole reason why people were pushing for the weapons inspectors, and then supporting the war once it began, was for Weapons of Mass Destruction and nothing else.

We all delude ourselves with historical revisionism when we try and say that this was in large part for humanitarian purposes. We americans are simply not that interested in the rest of the world, and I say that with complete honesty and self-reflection regarding our nation. I supported this war on humanitarian grounds, but that doesn't take away from the fact that what pushed us over the edge into committing troops were Weapons of Mass Destruction.

Sxotty wrote earlier in this thread that he never believed the WMD story, but that he supported the war from the get go as a humanitarian effort. While that is enobling indeed, I simply don't believe the vast majority of americans felt that way when looking at the bottom line. And frankly, I'm a little disturbed that there are people that didn't believe the WMD story, but don't seem willing to hold our elected officials accountable for it, especially for something so deadly as war. Is it apathy? I just don't know.

 

[diarrhea_splatter]

What coverup of Oklahoma? The government's refusal to go after militias? I'd like to know what coverup has been rumoured?

I guess you don't remember the news reports after the truck bomb that there were numerous plastic explosives tied to the inside of the building. Why else did they keep telling people who were trying to help to stay back due to un-exploded C4? One of the lead officers that was coming out about that ended up committing "suicide" by first slashing both wrists, breaking both arms, cutting his jugular vein, and shooting himself in the head. Naw, doesn't sound like a coverup

Uuhhhh, where'd you hear this? I've never heard a peep about it.

Here's one link: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24056

 

[RussSchultz]

And frankly, I'm a little disturbed that there are people that didn't believe the WMD story, but don't seem willing to hold our elected officials accountable for it, especially for something so deadly as war. Is it apathy? I just don't know.

Because there's nothing to hold them accountable for, in many people's eyes.

I've already shown list of quotes of democratic (party) leaders and members that were convinced that the weapons and/or programs existed and that Saddam was obstructing inspections for the sole reason of continuing the pursuit of them. And these aren't people who can claim to have been mislead by the president, either. These are people who had, or should have had, the intelligence in front of them and made their own decisions. This doesn't even include the UN security council, and other various nations discussing the issue.

Because the intelligence turned out to be incorrect doesn't mean there was is anything to be criminally culpable for, other than finding out how, and why, the entire world was wrong. And that question goes far beyond this administration, and doesn't invalidate (one of) the justification(s) for going to war.

It just means the information we used in forming that justification was wrong.

 

[nelg]

Natoma, may I ask you (and others here) if you feel that invading North Korea would be justified today? Even without a nuclear weapons program, how would you feel?

 

[Natoma]

Russ,

As I said the last time that you brought up those quotes however, practically everyone outside the administration was pushing for one last chance of weapons inspections. Practically everyone outside the administration was doing its best to avoid a war, which is what we should do in all situations.

The majority of the american public just before the start of the war in numerous polls believed that we should let the weapons inspectors do their jobs before going to war. Why? Because no one wants war if it can be avoided.

The only people pushing for war at all costs and at every turn demonizing the UN process and the UN countries who wanted to give the weapons inspection process one last chance, were those in the administration. They were so sure that Iraq had WMD that they circumvented the UN process and UN approval, and burned bridges of nearly every major ally we have in the world, allies we desperately need in our global fight against terrorism and for economic purposes. Now we have gone in and found nothing yet. Not a virus, not a bacterium, not a spore, not a nuke, nothing.

Hell I thought Iraq had WMD. But the key difference, as I said before, is that I wanted to give the weapons inspection process one last chance to work before committing troops. If I didn't work, and I've said this since day 1, then I would have completely supported our going into Iraq. But it was never given a chance to work by this administration doing everything from insulting our allies at the UN, to in the end telling the weapons inspectors to get out because we were going in immediately, UN be damned. That is where I have a huge problem with the way in which this situation was handled.

The whole reason the administration took to tack that it did was because Saddam posed an imminent threat to our security with his WMD, not because we couldn't afford another day of Iraqis being slaughtered by that madman. So because we could not wait, because we circumvented the UN process we've been beholden to for so long, along with nearly the entire civilized world body, we should find the reasons we did so no?

If you punish your child for being disobedient today, and afterwards you find out that your child had actually not done anything wrong, wouldn't you owe your child an apology? Or would you say that the beating was justified because of a transgression from last month which went unpunished?

Should we apologize to Saddam? Hell no. He deserved what he's getting. Should we apologize to the UN and the countries we insulted in the process if we find no WMD? Definitely.

 

[ByteMe]

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*

Tell that to the millions of people that suffered in Iraq.

I used to think that liberals were all mushy. Now I see that they are a bunch of cruel bastards.

 

[Natoma]

Natoma, may I ask you (and others here) if you feel that invading North Korea would be justified today? Even without a nuclear weapons program, how would you feel?

If we were to choose a country based on their known threat not only to us but to their neighbors, I would choose North Korea. They not only have nuclear weapons, but they flaunt them and tell the whole world they have nuclear weapons. They have also stated in no uncertain terms that they will test their nuclear capability by detonating a bomb in the sea between Japan and North Korea.

They have a madman who in perfect synergy with his now deceased father, have destroyed a people for decades, and threatened one of the most vibrant economies in the world with military domination.

Now I realize there are military problems with this, i.e. the fact that they now have bombs, and the fact that they have over 1 million well trained soldiers along the DMZ. However, this situation should have been taken care of last year when everyone was calling for it, republican and democrat alike. Instead, the North Koreans were ignored in favor of Iraq. From the very beginning, I said that was a bad decision based on the fact that we *knew* with 100% certainty, especially since the North Koreans were telling us so, that they were 6 months to a year away from having a nuclear bomb. That alone should have brought us to the table asap. Instead we ignored them and now they have at least 2-3 bombs, with another 3-4 on the way in the next couple of months.

Saddam was nowhere near that. If we were going to engage any country imo, it should have been NK first, Iraq second. The only difference we knew of at the time, is that Iraq has oil and NK doesn't. Yes yes, we've all heard the no-blood-for-oil slogans, but frankly can you think of any other reason we went to Iraq first, given what we knew at the time? We all thought Iraq's army was well trained and would fight to the teeth using whatever WMD they had at their disposal. Remember the fears from all sides of a bloody campaign that would take months just to take down Baghdad, because of urban warfare? Were those fears not the same as the ones we held then, and have now, regarding North Korea? Were we not told that Iraq could have a bomb within a year? Did we not know at the time that North Korea *would* have a bomb within a year?

There just seems to be a tremendous disconnect somewhere in the process.