Saddam who?

[yawningdog]

He's evil, He's unkempt, he's slippery, he's ugly, and as of this morning He's officially out of business.

Man oh man, how wouldja like to be the staff seargant that put that eel face down in the dirt, put his boot on the back of his neck and the muzzle of an M-16 at his head and said "Your ride is here."

And if I may indulge in a little political posturing, Everybody who said that the war in Iraq was a farce and that dubya was a loser had better check their Cliff notes.

[Budfred]

I will not bother to posture in return... history speaks for itself...

[Jason1971]

I am glad they got him, but let's not start this all over again. I don't want a repeat of the War in Iraq thread. which I started :(





Jason

[pave_spectre]

My 2/100th of a dollar.

Still no weapons of mass destruction though.:rolleyes:

[malcore]

It may be a faulty CPU, but I would also suspect bad memory.

Try memtest (http://www.memtest86.com/) or DocMem (http://www.simmtester.com/PAGE/products/doc/docinfo.asp).

Also check all cables for loose connections. More information on your system setup would help in diagnosing this problem.

Good luck.

[david eaton]

Malcore

HUH??

[Mark Miller]

I am very glad they got him, but I agree with Pave, where are the wmd's?
Mark

[jabarnutcase]

It may be a faulty CPU, but I would also suspect bad memory
Yes- I suspect both. Saddam has certainly had a bad CPU..(Most likely since the day he was born).

As far as his memory, I'll bet he will have a serious problem with that too during interrogation. :p

[Mark Miller]

Actually after awhile I think he will tell them everything he knows. Anything to stall a trial by the Iraq's, which he must know will mean his death
Mark

[Abbadon]

Originally posted by yawningdog
And if I may indulge in a little political posturing, Everybody who said that the war in Iraq was a farce and that dubya was a loser had better check their Cliff notes.

So, just because they caught Sadam, that suddenly means that the US didn't invade iraq on false premisis just to get cheap oil?


Well anyway, it' a good thing they caught him. I just hope they treat the situation wisely now, let's not make a martyr out of the sc*mb*ag...

[yawningdog]

I'll admit, the lack of WMDs is a bit perturbing, and I've been expecting they'll be found. Iraq is big, and there are still many places left yet to search. But let's not forget, Saddam himself told us he had them. Knowing that all by itself, the false pretenses argument loses a lot of steam.

And even so, it's hard to deny that he was a threat. We have, after all, discovered mass graves and torture practices.

And the whole "blood for oil" argument was posited by liberals during the first Gulf war, and yet afterwards, oil prices remained firmly in the hands of the countries actually in posession of the oil. We did not get cheap oil then, and as far as I can see, we're not getting cheap oil now.

By the way, dubya gets nothing if his oil buddies get lucrative contracts over there anyway. All of his assets are in blind trust. "Oh yeah y'dog, what about campaign contributions from said oil buddies?" To this I say, touche.:D

And don't think Al Gore wouldn't have done the same thing. He opwns a huge chunk of Occidental Petroleum (http://www.oxy.com/html/ourbusiness.html) . No matter who was elected, big oil was involved.

[pave_spectre]

And even so, it's hard to deny that he was a threat. We have, after all, discovered mass graves and torture practices.

And all that was known about the first time round.

I dont deny that getting rid of Saddam was justified, I just think there was no real justification this time. They just decided that with all the other 'threats' that were going on that they may as well get rid of this one under the pretense of him lying about the presence of WMDs.

IMO they should have got rid of him during the first gulf war when he was clearly a danger, instead of doing the half-assed job they did.

[Abbadon]

Originally posted by yawningdog
But let's not forget, Saddam himself told us he had them

lol, yes, and he wouldn't dream about lying, would he, beeing the good little junior camper that he is :D

But whatever, I'm glad they have caught him, whatever the reason they went there, the mass graves etc are reason enough. I'm sure they all (US, Great Britain, ...) believed that there were in fact WMD's there back when the war started, but by now I think they might want to admit they were wrong. :rolleyes:

Also, I think it's not about cheap oil today or tomorrow, it's about cheap oil in 50 years, when the world supply of the stuff is all but spend. (which is as much my fault as anyone elses, I'll freely admit ;) Damn that car is a handy thing! )

At this moment I'm curious about two things:
1) who's gonna be judge at Sadams trial (which country / organisation)
2) what will the verdict/sentence be?

[pave_spectre]

Originally posted by Abbadon
At this moment I'm curious about two things:
1) who's gonna be judge at Sadams trial (which country / organisation)
2) what will the verdict/sentence be?

1) At the moment I believe the US government wants the trial to be held in Iraq by Iraqis, but this would require that Iraq first have a legitimate government that can establish a constitution and formulate a set of laws and punishments which could take years.
A number of European countries are pushing for a trial to be held in the international court at The Hague.

2)Depends upon the court. An Iraqi court could go either way, either people wanting to get in his good books because of fear and finding him not guilty, or finding him guilty and sentencing him to death because of fear of reprisals.
If it went to The Hague, I dont think you could seriously expect any verdict other than guilty, especially since the belief is that he will be charged with the rather vague "Crimes Against Humanity".

[Abbadon]

Waiting for Iraq to be able to judge him themselves, I'm sorry, but that would just take too long.

Originally posted by pave_spectre
If it went to The Hague, I dont think you could seriously expect any verdict other than guilty, especially since the belief is that he will be charged with the rather vague "Crimes Against Humanity".

So, supose this happens, where do they lock him up? The Hague may be a court, but it's not a jail. Do they lock him up somewhere in Iraq?

[pave_spectre]

Thats a good question. Where do they have that Milosevic fellow locked away at the moment? Theyll probably keep Saddam in the same place.

[Steve]

I, too, am glad they got him. I think it's to bad they didn't kill him on the spot but, oh well, I'm sure they have their reasons.

The trial will probably be held in Iraq. I like Joe Leibermans ideas on it. They can try him in Iraq as long as they execute him. If he's responsible for 1/100th of the things they say about him, he deserves a quick execution and a speedy trial.

I hope the Iraqies can pull their country together and improve their situation but I have my doubts. We in the west have the tendency to think that everyone thinks like us. It's just not so. There isn't any country in that area of the world that is a functioning democracy. I doubt that Iraq will be the first.

[Budfred]

Mass graves..... (http://www.google.com/search?as_q=mass+graves&num=50&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=Iraq&lr=lang_en&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&safe=images)

[Beta Geek]

Steve, the reason they didn’t kill him on the spot is
A. That would be viewed by the world community as a cruel and unjust action being that there was no fight.
B. It would instantly turn him into a martyr to his supporters.

Edit: Sorry for bumping the thread

[Abbadon]

Originally posted by Beta Geek
Steve, the reason they didn’t kill him on the spot is
A. That would be viewed by the world community as a cruel and unjust action being that there was no fight.
B. It would instantly turn him into a martyr to his supporters.

Edit: Sorry for bumping the thread

(start idle fantasising) Well, then, why not shoot him when you find him, cover up the body and pretend nothing happened? The Evil One will be dead, no one knows so there's no martyrship and there won't be any time/money/effort wasted in further searches/trails. (end idle fantasising)

twould be nice, but of course, no way such a thing would remain a secret... ;)

[Steve]

I think that for those who are inclined to think of him as a martyr the time and method of his demise wont matter. But you might be right.

I'm sure the people of Iraq and the region need to know for sure that he is not coming back. I'm just concerned that in the end he will get away with what he has done. Alot of people don't believe in capital punishment. I'd hate to see him live out his life in prison or even worse, in exile.

[Budfred]

Do you really think a sudden death would be easier on him than life in prison??? I would like it if they put him in a max security prison along with a number of other despots and have them all wear shocking pink jumpsuits....

[Steve]

Do you really think a sudden death would be easier on him than life in prison???

Well...I don't know. I don't suppose either would be easy. But that's not the point. I don't really want to make it easy or hard on him. I'd just like to get rid of him.

[classicsoftware]

Dear Yawiningdog:

The whole premise for going to war with Iraq was they presented a clear and present danger to the USA due to their posession of WMD's. Korea and China also posesses WMD and they are more of a threat than Iraq. I think it was the RIGHT thing to do to invade Iraq. I think the problem lies in the fact that the President of United States LIED to the american people. That is the problem and it is unforgivable. Had he listened to Tom Friedman of the New York Times, he could have come up with a clear and compelling case for going to war without the lame excuse of WMD. All the other justifications after the fact are just a bunch of CYA by the Bush administration.

I suggest you read:

this (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22922-2003Dec22.html)

[yawningdog]

Sheesh. Here we go with the BIG BOLD words again. May I offer a suggestion? Strong font is a poor substitute for strong rhetoric. I normally don't parse out arguments, but I'm bored today.
Korea and China also posesses WMD and they are more of a threat than Iraq.
Oh really? When was the last terrorist attack committed by either Korea or China against the US or its allies? In fact, how often do either of these countries go to war at all, compared to Iraq that is?
The whole premise for going to war with Iraq was they presented a clear and present danger to the USA due to their posession of WMD's.
That's debateable, Mr. Clancy. I was under the impression that we were going to war to prevent Iraq from building those weapons.
...the President of United States LIED to the american people.
Can it really be that you've never heard of a town called Halabja?
(I originally posted a link to the Halabja memorial website, but decided it was too graphic and edited it out. Google halabja to learn of the chemical attacks committed by Saddam Hussein therein.)
Had he listened to Tom Friedman of the New York Times,
I almost wet my pants laughing at this one. Good idea, let's take our foreign policy ideas from a goofy Journalist, instead of our president, Generals, and cabinet members.

[classicsoftware]

First of all:

1) Becuase Saddam Husseum used chemical weapons 12 years ago against a small town in his country, does not make him a threat to the United States.

2) It's amazing intolerant you can be. Ut's also obvious you are not very well read on the subject at all. The crackpot journalist you refer to has been the NYT times middle east correspondent for years. His book from Beurit top Jerusalem is excellent and if you had read a single column he wrote about the ware before or after you would have known HE WAS IN FAVOR OF THE WAR BEFORE FROM THE BEGINNING.

3) The entire rationale for going to war was WMD's (now not 12 years ago) and he did not have them. Friedman presented a clear and compelling case that it would be in the strategic and geopolitcal interest of the USA to remove Saadam w/o using the WMD argument. If you read the link I posted you would a see a highly respected General also aggrees....

[Jason1971]

Everyone sit back and watch how quickly this thread goes into the crapper.... Before long people will start calling each other names.

So with that said I'll put in my 2 cents before this tread is closed.. I feel that the American people where misled as to the WMD as a reason to go to war with Iraq, but I do feel that Sadam had to go ASAP how it was done might have been a mistake. I am afraid all we did over there is to stir-up a hornets nest. And frankly I am sick of seeing GI's getting killed every other day over there, but to leave now would be worse for the people of Iraq than leaving Saddam in power. So I guess we are stuck over there...

I am glad they got that SOB Saddam alive. I say let the people of Iraq have him. Let them decide how best justice is to be served. After all the people of Iraq are the victims of this monster...


Jason

[Abbadon]

Originally posted by Jason1971
I am glad they got that SOB Saddam alive. I say let the people of Iraq have him. Let them decide how best justice is to be served. After all the people of Iraq are the victims of this monster...


Good point. I agree.

[yawningdog]

Fear not, Jason1971. This thread is safe. And feel free to continue to contribute.

First off, I did not go to the link posted by classicsoftware because It wanted me to submit information in order to access. Sorry, I don't do that.

I don't mean to impugn the work of Tom Friedman. I'm sure he's a talented and successful journalist. But the fact remains that he is still only a journalist, and I don't think it wise for the president to open the New York Times each day and say to himself, "Let's see, how shall I conduct foreign policy today? Oh look, Tom Friedman has some thoughts on the situation in Iraq!"
The entire rationale for going to war was WMD's (now not 12 years ago) and he did not have them.
I'm sorry, but you do not know that. In fact, you're claiming what's known in logic as a universal negative. He had the materials, we know that. He had the facilities, we know that too. He had the weapons, the folks of Halabja know that all too well. He himself claimed to have them, and refused to allow UN inspectors to look for them, as per his own agreement. Have we found a PT Cruiser with two nukes in the back? Not yet. Did Bush's rationale for war hold water? Absolutely. That's all I'm saying.

And for this, I'm accused of intolerance. I guess I'll just have to live with that.

[classicsoftware]

His rationale DOES NOT does not hold water. That's why you do not hear the administration talk about it anymore. I'm not saying the President should have consulted Tom Friedman. What I'm saying is, now he IS saying the same thing TF said. He lied, plain and simple. He may have had bad intelegence, then he should fire some people at the CIA, DIA and other agencies tha provided the bad info. It;s not wrong to free the Iraqui people. It is noble, it is just and it helps secure our country. Just say that's why you are doing it.

[yawningdog]

The light has dawned. I finally see what is really going on here. What we have here (and lots of other places as well) is a liberal who is filled with hate for George Bush (as most of them are), but has all but run out of reasons for that hatred and is desperately reaching for one.

[Abbadon]

Originally posted by yawningdog
Did Bush's rationale for war hold water? Absolutely. That's all I'm saying.

Of course it did, but you must pick the correct rationale.

Freeing the world from a dictator, fighting for human rights, preventing wmd falling into the wrong hands (wether they were found or not),...,... were not the primaryreasons for the US to liberate Iraq. If that were true, then the US should be making plans to "liberate" Nepal/Tibet, Palestina, some african countries, north korea (I think it is) and Tsjétsjénie (and maybe the US as well ;), just kidding! :D ). They're not making those plans, and they never will. That is because all the above reasons are second to this one:

The primary reason for liberating Iraq: within one or two decades, the US-supplies of oil will be gone. When that happens, they want a US-friendly regime in the opec countries. That's what they're working on now, one step at a time. Not to lower current prices at the pump, but to make sure there will be pumps in the future, at least for them.

All the other, secondary reason, are great and noble and generaly a good idea, I'm not disputing that. Hooray for bringing justice for all & whatnot. Good thing they kicked Sadams but! But those secondary reasons are also the commercial with which they excuse their oil-gathering.

[Budfred]

To second what Abbadon is saying, check back on the post about mass graves. None of them are in Iraq and there are an awful lot of them, but we are not preparing to "liberate" those countries....

That said, I am repeatedly amazed that conservatives can make incredibly irrational pronouncements and then believe they can negate the counter arguments by declaring them to be "liberal". I refuse to engage in irrational debate no matter how absurd the assertions. As I said when you started this thread, history will speak for itself; though I doubt any of your outlook will be able to hear....

[yawningdog]

Abbadon, your most recent post makes gobs of sense, and it's as close to a revelation I've yet seen here. But there are (I think) a couple of problems.

The oil in the US is nowhere near gone. Last I heard, there were at least a couple hundred years to go on the current supply. The problem with that is, the environment junkies keep passing laws making it more expensive and even illegal to go get it.

True, it would be nice to have a pro-US nation willing to sell us oil, but in the long run, market forces will prevail. If they don't sell us oil at a decent price, then they stand to lose a lot of money. Because then The US may decide the environmentalists are all wet and begin to tap into what we already have. (But only if pro-US people like Bush stay in office. Liberals clearly don't impress the oil-producing countries a bit.)

mass graves (http://www.9neesan.com/massgraves/) Just for you Budfred. :)
though I doubt any of your outlook will be able to hear....
Huh?:confused:

[Abbadon]

Originally posted by yawningdog
True, it would be nice to have a pro-US nation willing to sell us oil, but in the long run, market forces will prevail. If they don't sell us oil at a decent price, then they stand to lose a lot of money.

They wouldn't loose any money. Europe needs oil, Africa needs oil, Australia needs oil, Asia needs oil. (Antarctica does too but they have their own of course :) ) Plenty of other customers. They may sell a little less but they will be able to cope just fine without the US as customer.

I'm not a geologist, I don't exactly know how many barrels of oil there are in the US, but I think we can all agree that Iraq (and neighbouring countries) have more (16% of the world supplie in Iraq alone?). Wether US supplie will dry up in 50 years or in 100 years, it's pretty much a certainty that they're gonna go first (or quite soon at least) because of the high oil-consumption in the US (25% of the worlds consumption!). Gonna go first that is, if they can't import any oil. If they can import oil, then every barrel imported is one they still have in the ground themselves.

(just one link: http://maps.unomaha.edu/Peterson/funda/Sidebar/OilConsumption.html, I'm sure there are others that claim both likewise and contrary)

And finaly, if the oil argument doesn't hold up, then I still have that list of countries that need some liberation since they have evil dictators that violate human rights and are a treath to stability in the region/world. Until the US starts policing those parts of the world (where there is no compeling $$$$$$$econdary "motive"), I see this argument as unchalanged and unbeaten. (<-- not sure I put that last sentence supercorrectle, Englisch beeing such a silly language and all... ;) )

US wouldn't have gone to Iraq without the dictator-stuff going on. But without the oil-stuff, they wouldn't have gone either.

[Steve]

check back on the post about mass graves. None of them are in Iraq

Budfred, I think you had your search words backwards. If you try Iraq Mass Graves (http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&lr=lang_en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&as_qdr=all&q=Iraq+mass+graves+-&btnG=Google+Search&lr=lang_en) it's a different story. ;)

[Budfred]

I am aware that they found mass graves in Iraq. My point is that you can find mass graves all over the world, including in the USA. Fortunately, the last mass grave here was about 100 years ago, but many of the others are quite new and we are not mounting a war against the oppressive regimes that created those graves. Using mass graves as the excuse for why we invaded Iraq just doesn't hold water and none of the other excuses do either. We picked one repressive regime out of the myriad available. We went in prepared to destroy a force that was piddling compared to ours and we weren't even vaguely prepared to deal with the aftermath. We are now more hated than ever before in that part of the world and we have destabilized the region in a major way. Make bold statements about how successful we have been all you want, it isn't true and history will confirm that for those with the vision to see....

[jeeza]

Originally posted by Steve
I'd just like to get rid of him.
Why ?

[jeeza]

Originally posted by Abbadon
Originally posted by Jason1971
I am glad they got that SOB Saddam alive. I say let the people of Iraq have him. Let them decide how best justice is to be served. After all the people of Iraq are the victims of this monster...
Good point. I agree.
What are you agreeing with ?
That's not a point, that's just Jason1971's personal feelings.
He hasn't given any reasoned arguments why this would be desirable, he has just vented his feelings about how justice should be put in the service of personal revenge.

[YODA74]

It doesn't matter what Hans Blix, the Ken Starr of the UN or all the other Left wing Liberals say about weaponry. It doesn't matter whether we find any weapons of mass destruction. Saddam Hussein is a weapon of mass destruction, The only thing of consequence is: "Don't mess with America," a valuable lesson for other countries. When termites are found, it is sufficient to call the exterminator, not necessary to autopsy the bastards. To our President, who has conducted himself in such an excellent and admirable manner throughout all this,the whole thing is a gigantic undertaking, and very risky. Thank the Lord we have a president with the balls to take it on.And for President Bush I must leave the message, "Illegitimi Non Carborundum"

[Steve]

jeeza, "Why?"

That was just an expression of my personal code of justice. As I said earlier, if he's responsible for 1/100th of the things he is accused of, he deserves a quick execution.

I do agree with those who argue that we haven't been told the real reason for the war. I think Abbadon's version is the most plausible so far. Though I'm not really sure that it is the real reason, either.

History will certainly be the judge of our actions. I'm not ready to make a judgement. I'll wait and see what happens.

[Abbadon]

Originally posted by jeeza

What are you agreeing with ?
That's not a point, that's just Jason1971's personal feelings.
He hasn't given any reasoned arguments why this would be desirable, he has just vented his feelings about how justice should be put in the service of personal revenge.

So what? I can agree with Jasons personal feelings on this matter.

Regardles of this, he DID make a point: namely this: "...let the people of Iraq have him. Let them decide how best justice is to be served. After all the people of Iraq are the victims of this monster..."

And that's what I'm agreeing with.

[Abbadon]

Originally posted by YODA74
"Illegitimi Non Carborundum"

What's that mean?

[YODA74]

According to Safire's New Political Dictionary (http://www.santacruzpl.org/readyref/files/a-b/bastard.shtml)

[jeeza]

Originally posted by Steve
[B]jeeza, "Why?"

That was just an expression of my personal code of justice. As I said earlier, if he's responsible for 1/100th of the things he is accused of, he deserves a quick execution.

I do agree with those who argue that we haven't been told the real reason for the war.
I was asking that because it sounded like you had personal reasons to get rid of him, as if there was something personal between you and him. Such a thing would come between you and an objective sense of justice.
As for the real reason...?
I remember when the Rumanian dictator Ceauscescu and his wife were executed, I saw their crumpled bodies on the television journal right after they were shot. If I remember right, they were shot without a trial, or with a short mock trial. Somewhere in the vicinity, whether it was one of a number of persons present in the room where the scene was filmed, or whether it was some commentator from a Rumanian news service, there was a young woman, less than thirty years old, smiling happily into the camera, as if she was just coming back from a romantic evening with her lover and nothing or nobody else counted ; or as if she wanted to say to the spectator : don't pay attention to the bodies behind me, pretend they are not there.
That struck me because it was so foreign to what had happened a short time before, that elderly couple shot, probably in the presence of all those people, whoever they were... people who wanted them shot in any case.
Why had they to be executed so fast ?

[yawningdog]

You make a good point Abbadon, but I think you missed mine. Losing our business will not break those countries that have the oil, and I never said it would. I only contend that the US is a huge chunk of their business, probably the biggest. And any business person will tell you, losing your biggest customer, even when you have other smaller ones, is bad news.

Hey YODA, where the heck have you been? I was starting to feel like the only consevative left around here. You're absolutely right, and I'm ashamed for not seeing it sooner. Saddam Hussein is a weapon of mass destruction.

[Abbadon]

Originally posted by yawningdog
I only contend that the US is a huge chunk of their business, probably the biggest. And any business person will tell you, losing your biggest customer, even when you have other smaller ones, is bad news.

Well, no argument there. It would all depend on what kind of government would be in place at that time, and it would also depend on other aspects, like the state of alternate energy sources & whatnot.

The fact is that the US is in Iraq now, and after the fall of the old regime, the country is in shambles. I'm real curious to see where they'll be going from here. Iraq isn't the biggest country in that region, but they do have the most oil after Saoudi Arabia and oil = money = power. Whatever happens there in the comming years will have profound influences on that whole region, and therefore, trough oil, on everyones lives.

[Donn]

Vain Imagining #1: there was a greater WMD than Saddam himself

Vain Imagining #2: His two kids were not weapons of mass destruction themselves

Vain Imagining #3: Saddam was not killed because it wouldn't have been civilized; whereas allowing the Tuutsis in Africa to slaughter two million Hutus while the UN and the rest of us stood around and did nothing was not as uncivilized as letting the Khemer Rouge run lose in Cambodia and demolish 4 million people in two years.

Reality check: Saddam is being kept alive because he knows where EVERYTHING is: #1 the money, #2 the info (lookout France, Russia and Germany), and #3 the toy boxes. That #2, that's some powerful juju there.

Best//Donn :cool:

[YODA74]

Hey YODA, where the heck have you been? I was starting to feel like the only consevative left around here. You're absolutely right, and I'm ashamed for not seeing it sooner. Saddam Hussein is a weapon of mass destruction.


yawningdog... You know how these threads usually end, There is a far left mole that hangs here and they will grab at any and all straws they can during this election year becouse thay don't have a viable candidate or a viable platform to run on. Heck look at Gore He didn't even back his good friend Joe Leiberman..He had to go with a known Draft dodger, What Bush has done is 100 percent correct Saddam had to go, period. He was a threat to the whole world not just the US or his close neighbors.Personally if you want to find Saddams wmd's look in France,Germany,Russia.Personnaly I think he just depleated his supply by using them on his own people and on Iran we gave him enough time dicken around playing politics before doing anything, to get rid of just about any amount of wmds.I can't believe that the left keeps saying that we don't have world support heck what do we have now 138 nations giving there support in Iraq.Just becouse the UN isn't involed doesn't mean we don't have support.Heck even Japan has entered in which in it's self is amazing.
Just hang in there Dog your doing fine...

;)

[Reid]

Originally posted by YODA74
It doesn't matter what Hans Blix, the Ken Starr of the UN or all the other Left wing Liberals say about weaponry.A coincidence?:
http://www.rushonline.com/visitors/postwariraq.htm

* * *

TONIGHT'S NIGHTLINE BROADCAST - Date: Wed, Apr 23 2003

It doesn't matter what Hans Blix, the Ken Starr of the UN says about weaponry. It doesn't matter whether we find any weapons of mass destruct ion. Saddam Hussein is a weapon of mass destruction and, "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn," whether we find Saddam, Osama, or their hardware..

The only thing of consequence is: "Don't mess with America," a valuable lesson for other countries. When termites are found, it is sufficient to call the exterminator, not necessary to autopsy the bastards. To our President, who has conducted himself in such an excellent and admirable manner throughout all this, I must leave the message, Illegitimi Non Carborundum (I don't know the word for media) to complete the sentence.

Mary

* * *

[YODA74]

A coincidence?:

No it isn't and the point is ???

I don't [quote] and will not [quote] a personal opinion if you want to that is up to you.didn't use the whole excert so no copyright infringment it was used in and rearranged to make a point. but if you want to send people to Rush's site thats great, maybe it would change some peoples attitudes.

[Paul Komski]

maybe it would change some peoples attitudes

What is almost certainly true is that peoples attitudes are very seldom changed by the sort of arguments and statements made in a thread (or a dinner party conversation or whatever) such as this. People seem mostly to change their attitudes/opinions not as a result of "argument" but because of something or some insight in their own lives, which causes them to re-evaluate their own take "on the meaning of life and everything".

It seems to be as difficult to change one's point of view as it is for a smoker to give up smoking - something seldom done as a result of the rational (or indeed any irrational) argument of others. :D

We all know that the USA is big enough and powerful enough to impose in great extent its will on the other nations of this planet - but with that power also should come responsibility - unless, of course, that power is exercised in like manner to the bully in a school playground.

Saddam and what the Iraqis, or the USA, or the International Community decide to do with him is completely irrelevant to the basic substance of the lie told (or if one is really tolerant - implied) by George Bush (and Tony Blair, who for some unknown reason decided to jump into bed with him) that WE WERE AT RISK WITHIN 45 MINUTES of a threat from WMD.

The USA needs to decide as soon as possible whether it is going to continue to be the schoolyard bully for ever more or become a responsible adult nation amongst the many and diverse nations of this planet. US citizens may be offended by this because they believe the propaganda that they are citizens of the "land of the free" and are somehow superior in so many ways to everyone else on this planet.

As a beef farmer from Ireland, devastated first by BSE and then by Foot and Mouth disease, it is no joy at all to see (and to be capable of more than just empathising with the livestock farmers in America) the first case arrive in the USA. The response of the authorities there is such a parallel to the original response of the authorities in the UK that it bodes ill of what may finally be the outcome.

My own very personal take on Saddam, BSE, World Trade, Oil Consumption, Global Warming, Genetic Engineering, etc etc etc - as evidenced by the responses to these issues from the USA) is that the USA, particularly the present administration, doesnt give one **** what the rest of the world thinks. Saddam is just one small piece in all of this.

[Jason1971]

"What are you agreeing with ?
That's not a point, that's just Jason1971's personal feelings.
He hasn't given any reasoned arguments why this would be desirable, he has just vented his feelings about how justice should be put in the service of personal revenge." = Jeeza

I'm not real sure why you thought that a trial by the people of Iraq (using their own legal system) is personal revenge? :confused: :confused:



Jason

[YODA74]

My own very personal take on Saddam, BSE, World Trade, Oil Consumption, Global Warming, Genetic Engineering, etc etc etc - as evidenced by the responses to these issues from the USA) is that the USA, particularly the present administration, doesnt give one **** what the rest of the world thinks. Saddam is just one small piece in all of this.

saddam... we responed by taking him out of the program,
World Trade.... there is all sorts of world trade heck even our own factories are going over seas and to different countrys if it wasn't for the US there wouldn't be any fair trade.
Oil Consumption.. ya all consume as much as we do so get over it.
Global Warming... again ya all contribute as much as the US does again get over it.and what is the 100 year prediction no more than 1 degree per 100 years gee were all gonna fry, most of this can be attributed to volcanoes.
Genetic Engineering... almost all countrys are dabling in it
BSE... I believe that it originated in Europe in 1996....
we have just had our first case

kinda grabbing at straws??

[Paul Komski]

Per Capita Oil Consumption (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/ene_oil_con_cap)

if it wasn't for the US there wouldn't be any fair trade

If you believe that - and you almost certainly do - it just makes the point that some US citizens really do believe their own propaganda.

PS
Nor does anything you have said address my central point that the USA cares what the rest of the world, the UN, etc etc think. The USA historically has been intrinsically greedy and isolationist - and there is no evidence to show that this has changed.

[Paul Komski]

It was probably inapropriate to have included BSE in this thread other than I had just seen the news item and the response of the female US "minister" as to how she would be feeding it to her children at Christmas. On this side of the pond, there was a similar response by a UK minister feeding hamburgers to his children as a way of "reassuring the public"; and then children started developing new variant CJD.

God forbid. Don't handle it the way it was handled in the UK, where it was almost certainly introduced as a result of greed - by feeding herbivores with their own remains.

[YODA74]

They did that here in the 50's with milking cows I forgot what it was called but the feed bags looked just like fertilizer bags (same labeling and colors) infected a lot of milkers in the mid west and they covered it up for a long time.No telling how many people were infected. so know what you mean by the way it should be handled..
Luckely I mostly eat only wild game. And could care less about eating a cow.. Buffalo,Deer,Elk,rabbit,squirrl,qual is very tasty :)

If the US pulled all support from all the country's that it gives support to the rest of the world would collapes or be in the dark ages simple and plain. as far as the Usless Nations they cannot handle what they do take care of such as samalia, afganistan etc.They fail every time or just pull out.

[PrntRhd]

Perhaps a new thread on Mad Cow should be started and move it off this one, Sadaam probably did not start BSE/CJD in Britain or Canada or the US.

Paul, what's up with Singapore oil consumption?

[Paul Komski]

The fact that 100% of Singapores electricity (http://www.nationmaster.com/country/sn/Energy) is powered by fossil fuels could have something to do with it I guess.

Buffalo, Elk and Deer (as well as Cat and Mink!!) have all contracted BSE!! AFAIK ;)

PS
Transmissible spongiform encephalopathies in non-domestic animals: origin, transmission and risk factors (http://www.oie.int/eng/publicat/rt/2201/A_R2219.htm)

... it is also widely believed that the brains of dictators have indeed become spongiform from an excessive diet of Mars

[PrntRhd]

I think it was bags of "bone meal" that was the issue a while back. Feed containing animal parts was banned in US since 1977 to stop the potential introduction of BSE, one thing that was learned from Great Britain's outbreak. The current US outbreak may be related to a Canadian outbreak, but we will see when independent studies are done on the Washington state situation.

The only thing we have going for us is a cheap biotech-created test for BSE contamination, looks for the prions (proteins).

I am going to start a seperate thread for BSE (mad cow).here (http://www.pcguide.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=26921)

[PrntRhd]

IMHO the real reason we went after Sadaam was that he sent people to kill George W's father George HW Bush and also tried to go after British officials.

[jeeza]

Originally posted by Jason1971
"What are you agreeing with ?
That's not a point, that's just Jason1971's personal feelings.
He hasn't given any reasoned arguments why this would be desirable, he has just vented his feelings about how justice should be put in the service of personal revenge." = Jeeza

I'm not real sure why you thought that a trial by the people of Iraq (using their own legal system) is personal revenge? :confused: :confused:
You didn't get my meaning right. I didn't say that a trial by a people of Iraq is personal revenge. My point was that Saddam Hussein should be judged by the adequate instances, and Jason1971 stated that he should be judged by the Iraqis because he committed crimes against them. This consideration is however second to the previous one. Being judged by the right authorities primes.
Otherwise we should have let Serbian war criminals be judged in Serbia or in Kosovo too, instead of letting the International Court at The HAgue do it.

[jeeza]

Voices rising at <a href="http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=743">this site</a> are suggesting that Saddam Hussein may not have been in hiding, but a prisoner.
That does make sense, as the other day I heard that he was betrayed to the Americans by a Kurd. Why would Kurds let him hide in the first place ?

[Orion]

Watching a thread like this is always interesting, as a topic such as this is unparalleled at polarizing a community. Unfortunately, it also tends to make many people edgy, tense, defensive, and lose sight of logical arguments. That's not to say that the resons behind these arguments are not logical, just that when they are presented, the presenter is in such a fervor that they don't really take the time to present the logical argument to support the conclusion. That said, I have been impressed many times now by the way people on these forums respond to threads like this. This thread has not been any different-most of the replies, although heavily laced with opinion and personal values (and don't get me wrong, those aren't bad things by any means, just as someone earlier pointed out, not the way to convince people) have been civil and thought out. It makes me proud to have joined the forums.

Anyways, that said, I am curious about a few things. I seem to recall that even Colin Powell was recently on record saying, essentially, that there was no conclusive evidence of a "smoking gun" (I beleive that was the reference, unfortunately, I am at work and they seem to rejoice in taking my web sites away...stupid firewalls...apparently NPR is a threat to corporate security...) despite the councils and boards and all the different information groups (and therefore the president) saying before the war that there was. This seems to me as close to admitting a lie as we ever get from the government (reminds me of my little brother, "yes, I lied...but there was a good reason, and so you shouldn't get angry at me").

The question I have is this: why is the president not being pursued for lying? I'm not necessarily saying he should be, but it makes you wonder why he istn' when Clinton was, Nixon was, and I seem to recall a few others who had a big hit to their popularity because they were unfortunate enough to get caught (wasn't Reagan?). Is it because of the outcome of the action? Clinton lied on stand, and about something morally "wrong" by most peoples public standards. (a more "accurate" statement may have been "I did not have any more sexual relations with that woman than half the other presidents had with their mistresses.") Nixon lied about his own involvement in a sabotage mission that would have crippled the already dangerously precarious bipartison system for that election. (in essence, a spy mission against the US. Although, I don't think they ever proved it beyond a shadow of a doubt. I could be wrong there. anyone know?) Bush lied (or perhaps more accurately, bush's cabinet and staff lied) on a gamble that seemed likely and was the quickest path to something that most everyone agreed had to be done anyways. After all, Saddam was a terrorist of sorts, no? who could imagine that he didn't have weapons? He has all the other times... ( I figure it was just a prank...his way of saying "hah! fooled you, now you have no credibility!" ::laughs:: Who would have thought that he could advance his case and attack us by NOT having weapons? there's no more effective way to cripple your opponent than to divide his forces...)

My personal favorite possible "reason" for going to war is one having to do with nothing more than political psychology. With the exception of the Vietnam war, nothing in our nations history has served a more interesting purpose than a war. War has been shown to pull us out of financial difficulties from the depression to multiple recessions, it unifies people under a common cause, and it increases the popularity of the endorsing politician, so long as we are on the winning side.

Bush was elected (or not elected, depending on your viewpoint) by a very VERY slim margin. (wasn't it exactly %50/%50 after you took into account the average of popular vs electoral? that's a really slim margin in politics...) For a politician, it is crucial that they have a high level of approval, and bush started off worse than most presidents. Most presidents have about half the country largely ambivalant (the middle ground people who are not extremely politically biased), a quarter largely approving (the people biased towards the party the president represents), and a quarter usually mildly disapproving (most people of the opposing party seem to look towards the next election, rather than waste energy actively hating the winner). Bush started out with a polarized nation-roughly half loving him because he emerged the victor, and roughly half hating him because he "beat the system" or similar reasons. He needed something to pull himself out of that hole. Also, depending on the financial analyst you read, there was a dip in the economy as soon as he took office. there's no doubt many vocal analysts were predicting financial doom and gloom similar to the Reagan years. On top of that, we were just bouncing back from the recession and werent' fully out of it yet. It seems to me that the Trade towers attack gave Bush the opportunity that he needed, and from an objective viewpoint, I commend the fact that he took the opportunity when presented, though from a more subjective viewpoint, I feel he capitalized and focussed on it too much for my tastes. The "War on Terror" which Bush Restated (considering the War on Terror has been around since the 80s when we started declaring war on everything...War on Drugs, War on Crime, War on Vegetables in School...::gryns:: ) served the purposes of any president admirably. However, it could only take him so far.

How long would the people of the US stay unified under him chasing an unidentified and elusive target like "Terror?" they identified bin Ladin, and tried to make him the target, but bin Ladin proved remarkably hard to track, and people get tired of rallying under the cry "We'll get him any day now!" we needed a new target. I feel Bush saw the threads of evidence pointing to a familiar target, Iraq, put 2 and 2 together, and either got 4 or 5, depending on if you support him or disdain him. There were plenty of resons to take on Iraq. Dictator? Check. do what Kennedy couldn't with Castro. Murders and mass Graves? Check. worked for Clinton and Milosovich, it'll work for him. Personal Grudge? possible check. I've read some reports that the Iraq conflict and the controversy about that was the cause for the lack of Bush Sr. in the Oval office in 1994. how accurate that is, I don't know. Weapons of Mass Destruction? again, possible check, as he had a history of chronic WMD abuse. seems likely he'll have another relapse. suffering of people? Check. see mass graves. Oil and monetary value? Check. friendliness of administration with much oil is much appreciated. All in all, there were all the reasons necessary to go after them.

After Bush declared his War on Terror, patriotism was in. it was considered unpardonable to even question the administration, as was proven by the example of politically incorrect with Bill Maher. His statement, when taken in context with the conversation and when listened to by the meaning for the words, was not an endorsement of the attack. He was simply stating that to the people in the culture he was from, this sort of attack is not in the least cowardly. I accept this, after all, it's a cultural difference. Different cultures have different opinions on the same actions and occurances. Heck, even the same cultures-look at the 2000 election! same occurance, yet the ardent democrats see a lack of concern for the people, and the ardent Republicans see whiny democrats upset cause they didnt' win. both are valid viewpoints, and neither is strictly right, unless you agree on a set of rules and regulations to judge by, which the two parties can't.

According to my speech class, the phenomenon that occurs here is actually known to occur in certain dysfunctional groups, and is called GroupThink. (kind of reminds me of a term from "1984") everyone wants to agree so much that rational thinking and constructive criticism is suspended in favor of going with the flow. I feel Bush just capitalized admirably on that, as any politician does.

there's my 75/100ths...I originally didn't intend for this to be this long, but I dont' know where to trim it...as someone important said, "I don't have the time to write you a short letter, so I will have to write you long letter instead."

Keep up the thinking and analyzing...computers aren't the only things that need it!

Orion