Everything's cool, Saddam's been arrested.

[Scylla]

Spavined:

Sorry about the kidney stones.

In the mean time, our friend Scylla contribution to this thread is no more that a return to his tired and hackneyed “Big Dawg” theory of the application of American power, previously exposed to the light of day in the notorious “Thanksgiving Pile-on.” As a theory it is reprehensible. As a practical approach to international affairs it bears the seeds of its own destruction and poses more questions than it answers.

So you don’t like it. Frankly, I don’t either. It sucks to have to wield that kind of power and responsibility, but we have the power and we have the responsibilty.

To not do it is also an act with egregious consequences.

In that earlier thread I asked you for an alternative. Tearing down and attacking an idea is easy. You say it’s reprehensible and you don’t like it.

What plan would you place in its stead to wipe out international terrorism and prevent terrorists from getting their hands on modern WMD technology? How would you prevent country’s sympathetic to terrorist objectives giving aid and assistance to terrorists? How do you safeguard our future?

For all your talk about reprehensibility, you haven’t presented an alternative. If we don’t do something, we’re going to lose a city to a nuke, or a population to a plague. There will be other 9/11s.

I think allowing that to happen is a lot more reprehensible that using our power to change the paradigm.

You can’t just say you don’t like my idea. You need a better one.

What alternative methodology do you advocate that you think will work better to accomplishing the same end? If you don’t have one, you don’t have an argument as far as I’m concerned.

[elucidator]

Terrorism as we know it today is a post WWII phenomenon….Terrorism is not guerrilla warfare. It’s mayhem for media value….

What makes you think so? “The Propaganda of the Deed” was a slogan of anarchist terrorists better than a hundred years ago. Or are you about to define terrorism in McLuhan-esque terms? Certainly terrorism by airline hi-jacking has an abundant history, a history of which we were entirely ignorant, to all appearances.

…a complex and cunning attack … serious logistical and technical challenges. Training, coordination, commitment, loyalty and skill…The attack was organized and sophisticated….

No. Tom Clancy novels are like that. C’mon, man….boxcutters! You couldn’t have sold that idea as fiction, nobody would go for it! And the cabin door is unlocked? Their malignant good luck and our abysmal ignorance worked in perfect harmony.

… I don’t think Israel is a good example of diligence creating a terror free state. Do you?…

Nice! A near perfect evasion! But, of course, the point was that Israelis, being more realistic about this sort of thing, take prudent precautions. Rudimentary precautions. Still, pretty slick, Slick.

… He was killing people to get attention. That’s why it’s terrorism and not an act of war….

Or, equally likely, he was motivated by the vain hope that an attack on Israel would rally “the Islamic World” to his side. I think we can both agree that neither of us is any more gifted at mind reading than the other.

… It’s a load crap, IMO. By your same logic, since all laws cannot be enforced perfectly therefore we should not enforce any….

That’s what I said?? No shit! And I had no idea! Maybe you are better at me at this mind reading stuff, ‘cause I had no notion at all that I said that! I thought I was saying something like simultaneously bitch-slapping UN authority and claiming the advantages of its dignity is a bit much.

Nobody pinned a tin star on us says “UN Resolution Enforcer”. ‘Cept us. Didn’t get a warrant. “Badges? Badges? We don’t need no steeeeenking badges!”

Now, of course, if the UN Sec Council said to Uncle Sam “Saddam won’t behave, would you be so kind as to slice him a new grin?” and we complied with their mandate, then you would have a point.

… Sure. One reason it didn’t come to anything is that we were limiting Saddam’s ability to get these things and starving the people of Iraq with our embargos….

I’m not quite sure what to make of this rather unfortunate wording. It would seem to imply that you think the one reason why the Saddam/Usama axis never accomplished anything is because the embargo was so effective. Well, hell, Scylla if the embargo is working, why do we need to go to war?

… The Government of Ireland is not the problem. In Iraq the Government was the problem….

But they weren’t doing anything! You go to war prevemptively if the other guys is doing something! If we had caught the Japanese Navy steaming to Hawaii on Dec 5 ‘41 for no good reason, bang-pow! To the moon! But as long as they remained in port, we got no case! Zip! Zilch! Zero!

Saddam Hussein did not attack us. He did not even have the means to attack us in any meaningful way, he could not hope to defeat Belgium in a fair fight, much less the USA.

You want mind-reading? I’ll give you mind-reading! I’ll bet you Saddam prayed every day to whatever dark deity slime prays to that there was never a terrorist attack on the US, because he knew we’d blame him. I’m only about half-surprised one of his many enemies didn’t unleash a nasty and plant his fingerprints all over it! Some guy in Teheran gloating over the glowing sky above Baghdead.

[Tee]

*Originally posted by Spavined Gelding *
** It is enough now to point out that (1)morphine is a gift of the Gods and (2) it is the practice of the Mayo Clinic emergency department to quarter a perfectly inoffensive middle aged country lawyer in the same room as a large and belligerent drunk whose efforts to go home and teach that bitch a lesion she will never forget were strenuously repressed by armed members of the Rochester Police Department. **

You’re all warmed up for the Pit I see. (My sympathies.)

Originally posted by elucidator
Can you doubt, for one moment, that Saddam knew that if a terrorist attack on America was shown to be performed with weapons provided by Saddam, that Baghdad would be a glowing crater in the Godforsaken Desert in less than half an hour? Hell, we invaded him on the basis of no proof whatsoever! What might we have done if we actually had something!

I doubt. We did not nuke Afghanistan, and I can’t imagine us being that much more upset if the attack is by car bomb or anthrax instead of boxcutters…200 or 2,000 or 20,000 casualties…what’s the difference? It’s an attack, someone has succeeded in something. I don’t think we will ever choose that option as a preventative, threatening to turn a country into a waste dump. It wouldn’t ever happen and people know it.

As for the Keystone Kops w/ boxcutters - you may be right and it’s more our stupidity (or naivete) that was the problem…this will not stop people from claiming Osama is the biggest, baddest thing right now and why aren’t we tearing up Pakistan. Is this simply partisan sniping nowadays, or is OBL (sans weapons) an actual threat?

[World_Eater]

*Originally posted by Scylla *
**Coldfire:

I Don’t get it, are you seriously advocating and invasion of Pakistan?

I disagree. Saddam hated the US and the resources of an entire country at his disposal.

Yes, but they cooperated nonetheless. Perhaps Saddam would have cooperated more fully had the world been similarly united. I think one of the reasons we ended up at war was because Saddam thought the dissenting opinion would save him.

But enought about Pakistan. I don’t think you seriously mean we should invade, your just making a point. I don’t happen to think it’s a valid one. The situations are not equivalent.

I see you asking this question several different times. I’ll do my best to give you an answer. My answer.

9/11 is not an event to get revenge over. It is a warning. What it says to me is that the world is small. Ignorant superstitious fanatics can reach out from a desert and knock down our buildings.

Technological progress has put horrible weapons within the reach of some scary groups and individuals. If we do nothing, it is a sure bet that at some time in the near future, our cities will burn with the nuclear fire unleashed by some fanatic or our citizens will die from a genetically engineered plague. And it’s not just the US. Terror is a reality across the world as are the growing capabilitites of terrorists.

It would be nice to get Bin Laden, but getting him won’t change that.

So how do you change it? What do you do?

You can’t get every Bin Laden or potential Bin Laden. There’s no way to tell who would become a terrorist given the opportunity, or who harbors evil thoughts but hasn’t done anything about them. There will always be kooks and fanatics.

So how do you change it? What do you do?
I see only one way. You have to change the world. Terrorism changed the world. It brought in a new paradigm. It changed the rules. It is within our power to change the world again. We need a new paradigm that makes terrorism not viable. We need to make it so that they will have nowhere to go, nowhere to hide, and noone who will dare help them.

We need to focus on these worst weapons, and those who have them or are capable of having them must demonstrate responsibility. Saddam had chemical weapons. He used them. He invaded his neighbors. We had to kick him out. He sent missiles at a noncombatant (Israel,) which is a terror tactic, he has given verbal support to terrorists, and perhaps more (but we don’t know,) and he has been flaunting the resolutions that are meant to prevent him from gaining weapons.

So, he’s a legitimate threat to us. Giving aid and weapons to Al Qaeda is a logical step for him to take. They share similar goals. He wants more power. He wanted to be the focus of admiration to anti-western sentiment and he bombed Israel to get it. He’s really nothing more than a terrorist who owns a country.

Now, agreed that logically the fact that he might be apt to give aid to other terrorists is by itself a weak argument to wage war. But, it’s not a vaccum. His past behavior doesn’t say that he deserves the benefit of the doubt or forbearance. He is in violation of resolutions that are in place because we had to stop him before. Because of this Iraq is our legitimate purview.

More importantly though than the actual threat is the new paradigm that we must achieve. Saddam is an example that you can continually thwart the will of the world and make a threat of yourself, that you can violate resolutions and do your own thing, that we will not follow through. That a rogue nation can exist, that a terrorist with a country is a violable proposition. That you can get away with terror tactics.

The paradigm that prevents the nuclear fire from burning in NY or Amsterdam is that no matter what, you will never ever get away with it. If you aid terrorists if you attack your neighbors, if you use terror tactics, if you flaunt the rules and resolutions that are designed to prevent you from being the danger you have demonstrated yourself to be… than you will cease to exist. It will be inevitable.

Saddam as a threat has been removed. That’s an achievement. The more important achievement though is that you cannot get away with what Saddam did in this new world that exists after 9/11. That sends a message to any country that thinks about using terrorists or terror tactics to political advantage. It sends a message to any country that might consider harboring terrorists or aiding them, or even not being diligent about any who might happen to be within their borders. It sends a message to anyone who is thinking about playing fast and loose with chemical, nuclear and biological weapons.

In the past countries would sign treaties and resolutions saying they wouldn’t do this, or they wouldn’t do that, or that there would be consequences if they did… and then they’d go an do it anyway and renegotiate it after the fact.

The plight of Saddam and Iraq say that on this issue we really really mean it. There is no negotiations after the fact. You cannot escape through diplomacy or posturing, you can’t even escape by causing dissent amongst our allies. If you fuck with us, in this manner we will get you. If you show yourself or posture as a threat, we will end you. It will be inevitable.

If we do this, if we start enforcing these things in a no bullshit manner, if we make promises and keep them, the world will change. Nobody will be willing to aid terrorists financially, or through training or even through inaction, because they know that if they do, they will pay for it.

Iraq is important for another reason. The mideast is the hotbed of terrorism, the biggest and most dangerous breeding ground. We have to change the feeling of that part of the world. They should fear being our enemy and they should enjoy being our friend. A democracy in Iraq is a good thing for us. An Iraq that is free and prosperous and independant shows us for our good nature. It shows that our ire is not against muslims or the people of the middle east, it is against those that attack us. It show that we are good partners. It is an example.

We’re trying to change the world. We are trying to end terrorism. We are trying to make the world a better and safer place for people of goodwill to live together and prosper.

Those words are said so often and there are so many who smirk and who don’t beleive, and think that is a political rationale. But, I mean them. I mean them sincerely, and I beleive my government means them sincerely. I think that this is a gift that we can give ourselves and the world. I think it will be unpopular among the shortsighted or those that fear stirring the hornets’ nest, or those that see it as simply a political excuse.

But I don’t think it’s an excuse. We are good country, a generous country, and we are truly trying to make the world a better place so that an apocolypse is not brought on by an ignorant fanatic, or a country that thinks it can get away with aiding him, or allowing him to exist and function.

Iraq is a part of the war on terror. It is changing the world.

You have to decide what kind of person you are here.

I’ll give you an example.

There are hornets underneath my porch. When I got stung, I was able to slap and kill the hornet that stung me. Getting OBL is killing the hornet that stung me.

I went a step further. I got some spray and sprayed the nest by the door. Invading Afghanistan was spraying that nest.

I recognized that I had a hornet problem, though. One hornet was not the problem. the problem was the environment that was conducive to hornets living in high traffic areas for me and my family.

So I went under the porch with my spray and I killed them all. Then I got some screen and sealed in the porch with the screenign so that no hornets could build nests there.

That’s what Iraq is about. It’s about changing the environment. It’s not just about getting rid of this hornet, or that nest. It’s about getting rid of hornets in general.

The plight of Iraq speaks to Syria and Turkey. It speaks to any other nation that is thinking of playing games destabilizing the region or allowing terrorists domicile. It sends a message to the Palestinians. Declare yourself. Which side do you want to be on? You must now choose. We will enforce that choice. There’s no bullshit or posturing in this. We mean it.

We are changing the world.

That’s what it means to me. We have to change the world. Give me another scenario that prevents another 9/11 or worse. **

Well Scylla, nice to crawl out from under that rock to spew vomit in only the manner you can.

Not once in that long winded pass the buck post did you mention the US trying not to be such an asshole to the world in future.

Not fucking once.

This is the problem.

[rjung]

The biggest problem with Saddam’s capture is that morons like Scylla post crap like

Saddam hated the US and the resources of an entire country at his disposal.

…and thinks that qualifies, not only as a well-reasoned argument in its own right, but as justification for the whole stupid damn fool war to begin with. :rolleyes:

[Desmostylus]

I’m no longer surprised by anything this lying fucking weasel posts

*Originally posted by Scylla *
You know, I’ve heard that before and I’ve been thinking about it. Clinton lied for naked self-interest, to save his ass.

Now you may say that Bush lied so that he could get Iraq’s oil, and I can’t prove that he didn’t.

But, I happen to think that Bush lied because he had to for what he believed was the greater good.

<Blah blah blah blah and on and on fucking on…>

On the other hand, though, I know I wouldn’t lie straightfaced to save my ass from the consequences of my own carnal stupidity if I were stupid enough to do such a thing as Clinton did. The consequences would be on me, for my own actions. **I’d value my integrity higher than that. **

As if Scylla had any integrity to begin with. Pathetic fucking jerkoff. :rolleyes:

[Creative_Munster]

He stated that the invasion was a demonstration of America’s resolve to follow through with the enforcement of unconditional demands imposed on rogue states. Seems reasonable to me. Shaking a fist loses its power if a punch is never thrown.

He stated that America would like to establish a democracy in that troubled area of the world, bring them into the 21st century, and break down century long hatreds. Also seems reasonable to me. Stability is needed in that region. Democracy could very well be a tool in bringing about this stability. If it works, it could be a good thing.

And like it or not, the American and other western economies are dependent on the oil they have there. We have no choice but to deal with people who control the oil. I mention this because it seems like the leftists in this country have a let it be attitude. Since it is impossible not to have a vested interest in this region due to the precious resource they have there, it’s not very realistic viewpoint to have.

[Desmostylus]

Stated like that, Creative_Munster, it sounds very reasonable and rational.

Makes you wonder why Bush didn’t just say something like that in the first place, and persuade people that it was the right thing to do.

You know, instead of trying to short-circuit the persuasion process by lying about the WMDs. Tends to leave everyone wondering whether there’s any truth in anything Bush says.

[World_Eater]

*Originally posted by Desmostylus *
**Stated like that, Creative_Munster, it sounds very reasonable and rational.

Makes you wonder why Bush didn’t just say something like that in the first place, and persuade people that it was the right thing to do.

You know, instead of trying to short-circuit the persuasion process by lying about the WMDs. Tends to leave everyone wondering whether there’s any truth in anything Bush says. **

I totally agree.

[CnoteChris]

*Originally posted by rjung *
…and thinks that qualifies, not only as a well-reasoned argument in its own right, but as justification for the whole stupid damn fool war to begin with.

Trying to channel Cecil?

[elucidator]

*Originally posted by Desmostylus *
**…As if Scylla had any integrity to begin with. Pathetic fucking jerkoff… **

Well, you knew somebody was going to try to pull off something like this, didn’t you?

GeeDubya sacrificed his very integrity on the altar of security for our beloved nation. In truth, I cannot give this conjecture the solemn gravity it demands until after these paroxysms of laughter shall decline.

[Evil_One]

*Originally posted by pantom *
** …there is going to be a trial. During that trial all kinds of truly horrendous things about Saddam’s regime are going to come out. This will completely bury any lingering doubts about this war among the vast majority of the populace. **

Well said, pantom. We can talk about “illegal invasions” and “lying about WMD’s” and all that other leftist crap all day long. Some of you may even have a minor or two point that should be accepted by reasonable people not blinded by ideology.

The bottom line, however, is that eighty percent of America won’t care. The more information Saddam gives up, the better things look for Bush. The only people that will continue to carp will be on the hard left. And while their passion is sincere, they are marginalized politically. Any other conclusion is wishful thinking. Bush will be reelected in 2004.

[elucidator]

Well, a recent Newseek poll casts a rather odd light on all this.

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm

It seems that GeeDubya out-polls every Dem candidate, closest runner being Dean, who would lose 49% to 42%.

But, when asked the question of whether or not GeeDubya deserved another term i.e. “In general, would you like to see George W. Bush reelected to another term as president, or not?”
he loses 50% to 45%.

I’m not sure what to make of such numbers, 'cept that rumors of invulnerability are wildly exaggerated.

[World_Eater]

*Originally posted by Evil One *
**Well said, pantom. We can talk about “illegal invasions” and “lying about WMD’s” and all that other leftist crap all day long. Some of you may even have a minor or two point that should be accepted by reasonable people not blinded by ideology.

The bottom line, however, is that eighty percent of America won’t care. The more information Saddam gives up, the better things look for Bush. The only people that will continue to carp will be on the hard left. And while their passion is sincere, they are marginalized politically. Any other conclusion is wishful thinking. Bush will be reelected in 2004. **

Sadly this is true.

This was was not about Saddam being an evil guy.

<shaking head>

[ElvisL1ves]

*Originally posted by Evil One *
The more information Saddam gives up, the better things look for Bush

Don’t be so sure. So far, the information he’s giving up isn’t what Bush wants to hear.

Saddam Hussein has denied playing any direct role in commanding Iraqi insurgents or in planning attacks after he went into hiding, and he said his government possessed no prohibited weapons, United States government officials said Monday.
…
Several officials said they were not certain whether Mr. Hussein had said anything yet concerning possible Iraqi involvement in the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. [“Not certain he said anything”?]
…
So far, administration officials said they were not satisfied with his answers.

Understandably.

[World_Eater]

Well Bush was just on record saying he doesn’t care what he says, because he probably is lying either way.

Now why do I have the feeling that if SH admitted he had WMD, Bush would do a 180 so fast his neck would snap.

[elucidator]

They will be. Saddam will disgorge reams of information regarding his production of thermonuclear anthrax. Regretably, for reasons of national security, none of this can be revealed.

And, of course, Dr. Kay is still furiously scouring Iraq for even more evidence to add to the pile. He may rush in at any moment, clutching a damp cocktail napkin with the word “nuke” scribbled upon it in what may very well be Saddam’s handwriting!

Boy, some people gonna be eating thier words then, huh?

[World_Eater]

*Originally posted by elucidator *
**They will be. Saddam will disgorge reams of information regarding his production of thermonuclear anthrax. Regretably, for reasons of national security, none of this can be revealed.

And, of course, Dr. Kay is still furiously scouring Iraq for even more evidence to add to the pile. He may rush in at any moment, clutching a damp cocktail napkin with the word “nuke” scribbled upon it in what may very well be Saddam’s handwriting!

Boy, some people gonna be eating thier words then, huh? **

Why don’t people get this? How could they find this to be anything other then 100% truth?

This was never on the radar in the first place, and now it’s going to get swept under the rug because SH is a “real evil guy who gassed people”. :rolleyes:

[Akatsukami]

*Originally posted by elucidator *
**Well, a recent Newseek poll casts a rather odd light on all this.

http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04gen.htm

It seems that GeeDubya out-polls every Dem candidate, closest runner being Dean, who would lose 49% to 42%.

But, when asked the question of whether or not GeeDubya deserved another term i.e. “In general, would you like to see George W. Bush reelected to another term as president, or not?”
he loses 50% to 45%.

I’m not sure what to make of such numbers, 'cept that rumors of invulnerability are wildly exaggerated. **

That people feel that Bush is worse than anybody except Democrat presidential candidates, perhaps?

[CarnalK]

Akatsukami said:
That people feel that Bush is worse than anybody except Democrat presidential candidates, perhaps?

Oooh, it’s Nader’s year!

Evil One said:
The bottom line, however, is that eighty percent of America won’t care. The more information Saddam gives up, the better things look for Bush.

Maybe Saddam will chat a little about Rumsfeld and Bush I?

Actually I’m curious what horrible new evidence people are expecting to get out of Saddam. We already know he ordered the painful slaughter of whole villages… what’s going to shock me now? That they buried the children with their dolls?