Saddam's Sons Killed? | Forums

[XyZspineZyX]

Ah Iraq-nid me old mucker [img]/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif[/img]

I must admit your first paragraph has me a little confused at to your precise criticism but let me just say this: there are various sources for learning about current events on television but I regard Fox News as being simply the worst place to start. I watch them all from time to time but Fox News is long on rhetoric and short on facts. They continually promote the most absurd fallacies, interview dubious "experts" on both sides of the debate and too frequently toe the party line with little or no critical reasoning. It is grown-up's MTV.

They are great for sports though [img]/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif[/img]

As for the Bill of Rights (guaranteed to no one anymore[img]/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif[/img] ), my point in bringing this up is that here in the West we like to boast and brag about how "free" we are and how we should bring that glorious freedom to others. However, when we go into these other countries we instantly start violating the very rights and liberties we are claiming to bring them. Makes us look like hypocrites does it not?

I quoted the Bill of Rights because it is a convenient expression of the ethics of natural law which I hold is universal everywhere in time and space (I guess that makes me a conservative Rachy [img]/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif[/img] ). Indeed Saddam violated a whole bunch of these rights. However when you are committing a crime it doesn't do to point at someone else and say, "well he did it too!"

To be honest I don't think Iraqis are happy under either the US occupation or Saddam but that isn't the point. What goes on in Iraq is not our problem - it is their responsibility to deal with and eventually they would have done. Saddam will not live forever.

I must say I think it is something of an Orwellian newspeak to imply we can go to war to bring peace. Violence is violence never peace. The only way to peace is to respect individual liberty and it is up to the individuals in Iraq to obtain that for themselves. We can never do that.

I was confused by your last paragraph. Saddam Hussein never declared war on the United States. Even if at a massive stretch you considered his invasion of Kuwait an indirect declaration of war on the US (unlike his invasion of Iran, which was perfectly OK), that war ended in 1991.

There was no time limit on inspections and there was no implicit attachment of "regime change" if Saddam did not comply. The last time inspectors found weapons in Iraq was in 1991, later intelligence tells us that Iraq unilaterally destroyed the remainder in 1994. Saddam did not ban weapons inspectors from Iraq rather the US ordered them out in preparation for their 4-Day War in 1998. In 2002 Iraq agreed to let inspectors back in but the US blocked them until they could coerce the UN into passing a resolution that implicitly allowed for war in the event that Saddam did not co-operate. Iraq grudgingly co-operated (considering this is a massive violation of their nation's sovereignty) and continued to do so until the US again ordered the inspectors out of Iraq so they could begin a third war with Iraq (which was started early, ironically violating their own ultimatum).

According to international law this war and subsequent occupation is illegal and in violation of UN Resolutions (ironically just like Iraq's invasion and subsequent occupation of Kuwait). Responsibilities required under the Geneva Conventions have been overtly and covertly violated, as have the basic civil liberties we claim to bring to Iraq.

Now you have a good day. Glad to have you back! [img]/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif[/img]


Whoops I just posted a whole bunch of my own thoughts! Dayglow will be furious! [img]/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif[/img]






<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>


Message Edited on 08/05/0312:43PM by MisterNiceGuy

[XyZspineZyX]

Why didn't they just charge Saddam with war crimes, and haul his sorry *** over to the tribunal? I'm sure that would have gotten a lot more support than bombing the crap out of everything just to get a handful of thugs.

[XyZspineZyX]

Aha- Fox is long on rhetoric and short on facts. And you know this, how? If you are in possesion of facts that none of the news organizations are cognizant of, then by all means unburden yourself and share them with us. Promote the most absurd fallicies. Hmm_ I am glad you are there, old friend to point this out to the rest of the civilized world. And, again, you came by this information, how? Information that only you possess. Indeed.[img]/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif[/img]
You see, your assertion that we are committing a crime, is just that, an assertion, that you make, based on your own personal beliefs. Not necessarily steeped in fact, but viewed from an emotional viewpoint. Not necessarily a bad thing, I tend to get emotional myself at times. However, try not to let it become the driving force behind your thoughts, your ideals,the way that you view the world. As much as we may differ with another view or set of actions,it behooves us to try to do such in a dispassionate manner.
"Sadamm will not live forever"- I take it you mean if we had not intervened with his plan to bring love and lightness and happiness to the Iraqi people? But, His sons would have lived and loved on and their sons and so on- each succeeding generation having absorbed the wickedness of their grandfather, fathers, and then added their own unique twists to their own brand of horror. Must move forward and grow, you know?
Violence is violence, never peace. I can assure you that If we had not stopped Hitler, we all may well be speaking German today, including England. And I can envision no horror greater that to be forced to listen to German spoken with an English accent. [img]/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif[/img] Now that would be inhuman.
MNG: A man of wit and rare intelligence. But, sadly, a man that can not, will not see and understand that at times, throughout our history, man has been forced, for whatever reason(s), to take up arms to protect those that cannot protect themselves, from monsters, not those that live under the bed, or go bump in the night, but real monsters, those that would kill millions, simply because they did not conform to their peculiar, particular ideas on what is right and who should rule the world.

I hope that you are never put into the position where you have to take decisive action to protect, either yourself or your loved ones. I say this not to insult you, I have a few good friends who are pacifists, and good people they are. But, I would not want them beside me or have to depend on them for support if i were faced with those that would harm or kill me or my family. Usually in that case I, or we that share my sentiments, would then be faced with the problem of trying to provide protection to the pacifist along with our loved ones. And, in rare cases, the pacifist has actually been instrumental in hindering the efforts of the one providing the protection, In some misguided effort believing even then that cooler heads can prevail, usually they do not. There are some people, many actually today, especially in this climate, who would laugh in your face at your efforts while cheerfully ending your life.
Happens all the time, in every culture.
Those of us that heve been protected and shielded from any violence, except that they have seen on the TV simply cannot fathom the depth and degree of violence that exists and those that are capable of administering it.
Sometimes the only option to violence and evil is simply to remove it. And don't ask who are we to determine what constitutes violence and why it is our job to administer justice. It is every man's duty to protect the innocent, the weak. Someday, i hope you can put your emotions aside and view this dispassionately. it is, indeed difficult, but also a necessity.
Take care: And you know none of this is personal. I apologize ahead of time If what I have written has offended you in any way. That was not my intention.
"The views of this fool Leep do not reflect those of the management." [img]/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif[/img]

Leep Out:

[XyZspineZyX]

MNG - you are losing your touch. Ethics of Natural Law? There is no such thing. There are no ethical absolutes. I am not exactly a relativist, but I do not believe in moral imperatives. Your case would be made stronger if you used relativism, but instead you choose to use absolutism. That makes no sense. If there were such a thing as the ethics of natural law, that would mean that we would not need UN suport to do what we did as long as we believed it was the moral thing to do according to our morals - taking for granted that the Iraqi people (and all of humanity for that matter) share the same ethical views. That is not the reason we went in, but according to your argument I could say that and you could not defend yourself.

As for FOX, it is a legitimate news source - period. You would have to provide me evidence that their coverage or experts have somehow been impeached at a more frequent rate than any other network to change my mind. Otherwise I will continue to maintain that you are just regurgitating more liberal banter that you no doubt ingested at the last "Save Gray Davis" rally.

I am not making the case that "Saddam was bad so we can be just as bad." Do not oversimplify the argument. You stated that "when we go into these other countries we instantly start violating the very rights and liberties we are claiming to bring them." We started violating their rights? No, we have begun the progess to restore their rights. I am not sure what shade of rose your glasses are today, but changing from a dictatorial regime to a democracy means a total stripping down of governmental structure as it existed and a slow process of education about democracy leading up to its full implementation and out departure. The stripping of the existing government happens all on its own because those in power quickly disappear out of fear of retribution for their transgressions. The country is left in near anarchy. You argue as if we should have it all up and working in full order by now. That would be perfect if we were starting a moon colony, but we are talking about a lot of history and oppression to overcome with an existing culture and the shadow of a former government. These things do not happen overnight. Also, if memory serves... weren't the first reports of looting and murders in the streets of Iraq after Saddam's statue fell met with pleading that the US forces do something to get it under control?

Perhaps the most troubling statement you made is this: "What goes on in Iraq is not our problem it is their responsibility to deal with and eventually they would have done. Saddam will not live forever." I am going to make a very emotionally charged comparison here, but Hilter and Saddam have more similarities in the way they manage their population that dissimilarities. Genocide is bad. Agreed? Saddam systematically killed thousands of Iraqi citizens if not by hand, by order. He had cruel sons who were murderers and rapists waiting in the wings to take over, and behind them was the next generation. Iraq would have been in perpetual control of a genocidal, murdering, raping family. To say that the Iraqis would have taken care of it themselves is not much different from saying that the Jews should have overthrown Hitler. You sound less like a liberal and more like an isolationist.

Furthermore, your oxymoronic argument that Iraqis deserve the same rights as us, but we should sit idle and maybe someday they will figure out how to achieve those rights on their own is demonstrative of your weak stomach for commitment. If you do believe in moral absolutes, and that the Bill of Rights is a documented representation of those rights, then you need to be committed to assuring that ALL human beings are afforded those rights. Sometimes being commited to a cause, especially one of high moral purpose, means being willing to sacrifice something. It sounds like you are not. You talk a good game from the sideline, basically, while your team gets pummeled. Well, the Iraqi people did not have time for anymore liberal armchair quaterbacks.


Regretably, you stray further from reason by stating that Saddam did not interfere with weapons inspectors. I cite a 1997 UN resolution (1115):

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,


1. Condemns the repeated refusal of the Iraqi authorities to allow access to sites designated by the Special Commission, which constitutes a clear and flagrant violation of the provisions of Security Council resolutions 687 (1991), 707 (1991), 715 (1991) and 1060 (1996);



2. Demands that Iraq cooperate fully with the Special Commission in accordance with the relevant resolutions; and that the Government of Iraq allow the Special Commission inspection teams immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to any and all areas, facilities, equipment, records and means of transportation which they wish to inspect in accordance with the mandate of the Special Commission;



3. Demands further that the Government of Iraq give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to officials and other persons under the authority of the Iraqi Government whom the Special Commission wishes to interview, so that the Special Commission may fully discharge its mandate;


In fact, there were two more such resloutions condemning Iraq's lack of compliance with UN Security council resolutions that year. You go on to say that Iraq began complying again in 2002. If Iraq never stopped complying, as you maintain, then how could they start again? We'll chalk that one up as you being a little drunk at the time you posted. And, weapons inspections were a violation of Iraq's sovereignty? Not quite. The weapons inspections were a condition of the seize-fire which let Saddam stay in power. He agreed to the inspections to keep his throne after attacking Kuwait unprovoked and then getting his arse handed to him on the battlefield. He invaded, the UN repelled, he and the UN agreed to a seize-fire, the conditions of which he violated repeatedly. I love revisionist historians like yourself, MNG. You are quite entertaining.

Just like you state that all weapons were destroyed in 1994. That is quite puzzling. Why then did Hans Bliz sit before the UN Security Council on January 27, 2003 and state:

"Another matter, and one of great significance, is that many proscribed weapons and items are not accounted for. To take an example, a document which Iraq provided suggested to us that some 1,000 tons of chemical agent were unaccounted for. I must not jump to the conclusion that they exist; however, that possibility is also not excluded. If they exist, they should be presented for destruction. If they do not exist, credible evidence to that effect should be presented." ?????????????

I am easily confused. So, please explain.



<table bgcolor="#000000" width="300"height="1"cellspacing="0"cellpadding="0 " border="0"><tr><td><td><table width="120" cellspacing="2" cellpadding="2" border="0"><tr><td> <tr><td bgcolor=red onmouseover="this.style.backgroundColor='yellow';" onmouseout="this.style.backgroundColor='red';" background=""><center><font face="arial" color="black" size="4">[b]THE BLACK PLAGUE</font><font color="grey"><tr><td bgcolor=red><center>Visit the 3Mbit [|3P] Dedicated RavenShield Server @ 65.115.93.132 <tr><td bgcolor=red><center><font size=1>FOR SALE: French assault rifle, dropped once, never used</td></tr></table></table>

[XyZspineZyX]

typos typos typos. Sorry folks. It's kind of my call-sign.



<table bgcolor="#000000" width="300"height="1"cellspacing="0"cellpadding="0 " border="0"><tr><td><td><table width="120" cellspacing="2" cellpadding="2" border="0"><tr><td> <tr><td bgcolor=red onmouseover="this.style.backgroundColor='yellow';" onmouseout="this.style.backgroundColor='red';" background=""><center><font face="arial" color="black" size="4">[b]THE BLACK PLAGUE</font><font color="grey"><tr><td bgcolor=red><center>Visit the 3Mbit [|3P] Dedicated RavenShield Server @ 65.115.93.132 <tr><td bgcolor=red><center><font size=1>FOR SALE: French assault rifle, dropped once, never used</td></tr></table></table>

[XyZspineZyX]

Arachnid I will get to your edifying comments in short order but first I must dispose of Leep. [img]/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif[/img]

Leep, you talk as if the continued rule of the Hussein family was as inevitable as the march of time itself. If this were true we would all still be living under monarchy. The Baath regime had only last twenty years before its first major revolution when Saddam took control and then ten more years before a second uprising in which it nearly fell. Saddam Hussein was a unique historical figure: his sons lacked either the heart or the discipline to do what he did. IMHO the regime would have collapsed shortly after his death. Whether it would be paradise on earth or not is another matter.

Please do not make the mistake of comparing Hitler to Saddam; in particular your invalid analogy of "stopping" Hitler. Hitler occupied nearly every country in Europe and had the most feared army of all time. He was "doing" something that needed to be "stopped". Saddam could barely handle Iran. Precisely what were we "stopping" him from doing? Nothing that threatened us.

You accuse me of being emotional yet this is pure logic. You also accuse me of being a pacifist. Not guilty! I simply maintain this is an unjust war and that Saddam presented no threat to us, as has been born out by the facts.





<center><marquee><font color="red"><font size="2"
<style="Verdana">"The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception." - Mark Twain, 1917<font color="red"><font size="2" style="Verdana"><center><marquee>


Message Edited on 08/05/03â 09:27PM by MisterNiceGuy

Message Edited on 08/05/0309:29PM by MisterNiceGuy

[XyZspineZyX]

No Text

Message Edited on 08/05/0309:26PM by MisterNiceGuy

[XyZspineZyX]

One can quote as many past U.N. resolutions as they desire, but there remains only two legal justifications for attacking another country and they are: self-defense, or if the Security Council authorizes you to do so. It is perfectly clear that none of the United Nations Security Council resolutions involving Iraq ever authorized an armed military intervention.

Furthermore, the US/UK legal rationalization, which is based on Security Council resolutions dating all the way back to 1990-91, is stretching it to say the least. When you look very closely at all the edicts and the routine practices of the Security Council, it's apparent that the majority of members on the Security Council believed that further authorization would be needed in order to use military force against Iraq.

However, as we all know now there was never any UN Security Council authorization, let alone an impending humanitarian catastrophe or imminent threat posed by Iraq. Basically, it was unlawful from the start, and the ongoing absence of WMD in Iraq makes it difficult for many to think otherwise. The earlier Security Council resolutions were simply related to the occupation of Kuwait, and that situation has completely changed, and it is totally false to treat Resolution 1441 as if it authorizes the use of force.

[XyZspineZyX]

V3-

The UN resolutions you speak of (early 1990's) were a conditional seize-fire, which Saddam negated. Therefore, since he violated the conditions of the seize-fire, the US was empowered to strike in accordance with the original UN resolution authorizing force.

If we acted against the UN's law, then why has there been no repercussions? No resolutions condemning us, no military action to protect Iraq, ... nothing. Why not?

And, you are right, there was no impending humanitarian catastrophe. The was an ONGOING one. I guess you don't deem thousands of dead citizens, a starving population, mamed and dead contrarians, or raped women a catastrophe. What exactly do you need? You want every last man, woman, or child lined up in fron of Saddam and shot?

Look, if war is distasteful to you, say so. You don't like death, you don't like how much it costs, you don't think camoflauge is particularly flattering, whatever your hangup is - fine. But don't pretend like Iraq was this oasis in the desert. It was a hell on earth for most people there. I have a gentleman under my employ who lived there, his father still lives there and runs a business, and I can tell you what his opinion is of Saddam Hussein and his practices - pure hatred.

Argue facts. Don't play ostrich.



<table bgcolor="#000000" width="300"height="1"cellspacing="0"cellpadding="0 " border="0"><tr><td><td><table width="120" cellspacing="2" cellpadding="2" border="0"><tr><td> <tr><td bgcolor=red onmouseover="this.style.backgroundColor='yellow';" onmouseout="this.style.backgroundColor='red';" background=""><center><font face="arial" color="black" size="4">[b]THE BLACK PLAGUE</font><font color="grey"><tr><td bgcolor=red><center>Visit the 3Mbit [|3P] Dedicated RavenShield Server @ 65.115.93.132 <tr><td bgcolor=red><center><font size=1>FOR SALE: French assault rifle, dropped once, never used</td></tr></table></table>



Message Edited on 08/05/0302:03PM by Arachnid

[XyZspineZyX]

No Text

Message Edited on 08/05/0306:58PM by V3-Dev