So, you agree with someone who says people should be rounded up and shot because of what they believe?
Now I don’t know what your issues are with Scylla, but from this thread alone it looks like he is thinking beyond the end of his nose. A stable Iraq stabilizes the region. A stable region means less terrorists. Less terrorists mean less threat to the US. Does that justify the war? Dunno. That is your call as an American. Does removing a nut like Saddam from power justify the war? Yes, as far as I’m concerned.
How would the ICC enforce a ruling against Saddam?
**
And did you notice that it isn’t Osama who was flying the plane into the building? He wants to be the Big Dawg. This is his way to get there as he thinks. Do you think he’d overthrow the Saudi family and then put someone other than himself in their place? Not likely. He finds people who are dedicated to their ideology and then uses them for his purposes.
The USA, as a member of the ICC has the power to start a case against Saddam for crimes against Humanity; the ICC has power to go after people as long as the members agree to do so. AFAIK for now the court only has power over signataries to the treaties that created it, though. Granted it still would have to be improved so that flaunting crimes against humanity are not swept under the carpet just because the country where those crimes where comitted have not ratified the necessary treaties.
All that would need quite a bit of diplomatic power put into motion, something the US (IMO) had until the Iraq blunder
None of this would be simple, I´m not that naive, but if the real goal is to make a world where people like Saddam won´t have a place we have to set some rules and stick to them; as things are now any Generalissimo Bananas can bath on human blood as long as he doesn´t cross a world power, and that ain´t right IMO; and if the US wants to keep frothing at the mouth about freedom, war against terror and such, it´s time it actually does so in an indiscriminate way or shut up about it. Hipocrisy sucks.
Yes, I think I phrased that incorrectly, Osama in paricular is not the same breed as your average Allah-Akbar!-KABOOM guy; he´s a lunatic, not an idiot after all; he´s got ambitions of greater power, I have no doubt about it. He´s the dark, evil puppeteer kind of man.
Both require communication and cooperation amongst the participants, niether of which you are within light years of proving.
Balderdash, sir. Tommyrot.
Classic Scylla. I ask a question, you offer entirely unrelated assertion as proof positive. As I am honor bound not to publicly reveal the contents of your ugh-mail, you can pretend to have scored some sort of point. Pure weasel oil.
As far as I’m concerned, the only way to justify this war is to find a huge fucking pile of WMD.
Look these assholes had a fresh slate, they could have packaged the reasons for war any number of ways. They could have said, “look we have to go finish the job from 91”, or “we need to liberate the Iraqi people, this guy is killing them in droves, he’s a homicidal maniac”. So after many focus groups and huddling around the oval office they came up with the WMD dealy. This was the justification they used to get us into the war, and by fucking gum I’m going to hold them responsable to the WMD line. YMMV, but it shouldn’t.
One point worth considering: Is it worth removing Saddam now?
I keep hearing of scarce resources to prevent terrorism in the “homeland”, states griping about Federal funding etc etc, and US is spending gorgeous money and resources in Iraq after removing a guy for specious reasons. The best case scenario with Iraq emerging as a vibrant democratic country and its effect cascading through the Middle-East thus stabilizing the region and, in the long term, diminishing the threat of terrorism sounds a little, shall we way, dreamy to me. That scenario sounds unrealistic in itself but to think that it will lead to a substantial reduction of terrorism is also questionable.
Hmm. Yes of course, you are correct. I have proved neither.
I will try to prove both since these are your conditions, and then I will await your concession on the existance of the confederacy, which I am sure you will feel honor bound to provide.
Let’s see. How can I prove that you were communicating with say, Xenophon (who I surmise to be a member of the confederacy?) It does seem an intractable obstacle.
I will try to prove both since these are your conditions, and then I will await your concession on the existance
Perhaps you were using carrier pigeon, or telepathy? That should be easy to prove, shouldn’t it?
Maybe not.
But soft, this is a message board is it not? It would seem to me that if you and he were posting on it, and reading and responding to each others posts that would imply communication, would it not?
I would guess that in the last three years there are at least a dozen threads in which you, I and Xeno have been participants and which you and Xeno have communicated.
Now how about cooperation? Let’s see you were almost universally arguing against me. In fact, I can’t recall an instance when we were on the same side. Were you arguing against Xeno at those times, or were you and Xeno arguing against me? I seem to recall almost universally that it was you and Xeno on one side versus me. I also recall that you two would help each other and back each other up in your arguments.
That seems to imply cooperation.
For the record Elucidator, do you deny having communicated and cooperated with Xenophon in many different threads in which you took an adversarial position to me?
Do you deny that it happened?
Do you deny the same with Minty Green, or Elvis Lives, or sometimes all three?
Do you deny that it happened in most every political thread in which we were common participants?
It is my contention that such occurences were common and nearly automatic and habitual, and thusly it is fair to categorize your relation to Minty, Xeno and Elvis as it relates to your habitual adversarial relationship to me as a loose confederacy.
If you deny that this has occured, I will be happy to provide cites, though it seems kind of stupid as I’m sure you well know, it is accurate and obvious.
Untrue. The answer to the question you asked was implied in the answer. I was hoping to convince you. Silly I admit.
Bullshit. I was simply trying to exercise discretion and be nice.
If you feel my email represents otherwise, feel free to post it publically.
Are you really sure you want me to take you as seriously as you do? Too wierd.
Tell you what, time for the traditional Xmas eve mitzvah. Enough already, buying tedium wholesale. Got nothin more to say, regarding you, your personality, your posting style or any of your relatives. Several big fat targets in your latest post, but chingalo, right? Celebrate the birth of the uber-Hippie.
You’re thinking of Richard Perle, uber-conservative. Daniel Pearl was a journalist who was kidnapped, tortured, and murdered by decapitation, courtesy of Khalid Sheik Mohammed and the rest of the cockroaches that belong to al-Qaeda.
A stable country where the citizens feel like they have a say creates terrorists? Uh, no. There is no fantasy in that.
Now if you are saying that the expectation of Iraq turning into a vibrant democracy is unrealistic, I’d have to say you have a good chance of being correct. We can only hope that you aren’t.
Tim Mcveigh = Nut, no different than a guy in a clock tower. How many of him do you think there are in the US and, more importantly, how organized do you think they are? Nuts grow in all environments.
Admin: I thought Saddam was the one accountable for WMD? The World said Iraq had WMD, not just Bush. So, if he was lying then he should be accountable even if the lie was for what he might have thought was the greater good: the removal of Saddam. If he was mistaken then not. He should not have emphasized WMD as the main reason for removing Saddam in any case.
Well this is where the problem is, in the lying to do the greater good. I’m not even looking at all the things that happened afterward, I’m still focusing on this fact that we were lied to.
**
Sadly, WMD (if they had existed) was the strongest case the admin had. Perhaps people don’t really give a shit about liberating people just for the sake of being nice people, otherwise they would have used that as justification for invasion.
Whatever the case, we are losing a soldier a day, wasting billions of dollars, and more people hate us everyday.
Geez, wassa a matter? No one likes you? Awww, too bad. :rolleyes:
I’ll let you in on a little secret. Most people hate you. When you do wrong it rationalizes how they feel. When you do right they deny it, or point back to what you’ve done wrong in the past. You spend billions on foreign aid and even when people are offloading sacks of grain with the US flag on it they still hate you. You could solve world hunger, cure all diseases, and develop a pill for immortality and guess what? They’d still hate you. It is major penis envy.
My fellow Canadians are some of the worst for it. I’ve never seen such a bunch who will put down Americans for doing something stupid and then going out and doing the same thing themselves. There is not one bit of difference between us, but that doesn’t keep most Canadians thinking that we are somehow superior than Americans. And it pisses us off to no end when we are proven wrong.
Me, I’d prefer it if I was an American, or if Americans were Canadians. Whatever. We are so similar in values that it makes little sense to have separate countries. At the least we should be knocking down the walls and create a North American EU.
