208 replies to this topic

[Blue Eyes]

Originally posted by Jriv71
I just want to hear you say it, that's all.  If you're not willing to say it, what's the point of your rant?

While I've already posted in regards to your posts in this thread, I just thought I'd draw attention to this line of logic. Well, actually, the lack thereof.

[Felix_Leiter]

Yep. It's commonly known as having a catalogue of the James Bond movies.

Ha! Well I thought I'd try and soften up the rigid polarities that seem to be forming.

[Blue Eyes]

Originally posted by Xenobia
Dr. Crane also makes a good point that Hussein could try a proactive defense, and point out all the wrongs of the allies campaign, not as justification for his own actions, but rather to say we all stink and he should be tried by someone who isn't as guilty as he is.  

You'd be hard pressed to find any government or nation not as guilty as he is. Fact is, there's no government out there that can morally hand out the death penalty.

[Xenobia]

Dr. Crane:

Your level headedness continues to impress me. I know there are two sides to every coin...and God yes, I know the sins we have all committed.

I guess what lives underneath my words is my desperate hope that we never sprayed chemical weapons on anyone, that no president ever had his family members killed, that the president doesn't have a terrorist cell at his disposal to take out his enemies.

The US sins are bad, I know this, and we will be made to pay someday, I know this too. But that in now way excuses what Hussein has done, and that he should be punished for what he has done.

-- Xenobia

[Dr Niles Crane]

Perhaps I am just gently suggesting he should put down the cheese burger..?

Sorry that you don't like Clinton all that much - just thought it was a nice story.

But no I really really don't hate America! Trully - I know lots of Republicans too.

For me to actually dislike someone they would have to invade my country, cut off my food and water supply, kill my civilians indiscriminately, its soldiers would have to loot my antiquities, spread around depleated uranium, bugger up my economy, stuff around with my political system, not allow humanitarian aid or drugs to reach the sick and wounded, and pinch all my oil.

Then I might be a little shirty.

But Xen and Blue Eyes are very right: It is a no win, nasty, god awful situation. If you drive people to desperation they will do desperate acts - be it terrorism (the recourse of the disempowered) or 'pre emptive strikes'.

We have an amazing capacity to hurt each other - sad really.

[Sensualist]

Originally posted by Felix_Leiter


Ha! Well I thought I'd try and soften up the rigid polarities that seem to be forming.

The site would have really caught fire had good old Derringer and Ray T been posting.

Add in Loomis' 'devil's advocating' and they would've blown up the place.

It would have been sheer chaos! (KAOS!!!)

The thread would have been closed. Completely deleated, even.

Accusations of censorship and Law suits would have abounded everywhere.

[DanMan]

Originally posted by Dr Niles Crane
for holding people in prison without charging them of a crime

Guantanamo Bay

for not allowing them access to any of the standard international legal protections

Guantanamo Bay

for torturing prisoners

Using the Pakistanian Security forces to 'interrogate' terrorism suspects

for holding prisoners in conditions that would make the UN go 'Oh My God'

Guantanamo Bay

for executing people of sub standard intelligence  

The one that strikes me the most was the black guy who was so mentally retarded that he actually saved his pie for later because he had no concept that he was not going to be able to come back for it later. Clinton's hard line stance got him elected though..?


for having a very dodgy legal system

The county in California where only 3 people out of 5000 arrested went to trial because quite frankly they just could not give a damn. The chief pathologist in Oklahoma who kept 'adjusting' the dna results to favour the prosecution.  

You will he happy to know that they scheduled a full inquiry into all death penalty cases, unfortunately owing to the sheer numbers it was estimated that 30 innocent people would die before their cases were investigated.

for funding drug cartels

George Bush - senior, as the head of the CIA. You see it was the middle of the Cold War and anyone who wasn't left was OK.


for funding anti government rebels

Same thing: Why do you thing Norriega was put into power? Why do you think the US backed Al Quiada against the Soviet Union?

for funding a leader whose main funding supply was drugs

Panama: But then, just like saddam he stopped doing what he was told and they desposed him - the Americans fire bombed large parts of Panama city - the bits where the anti-Norriega rebels were.  


for invading another country and deposing its legitimately elected leader
for assinating another legitimately elected leader  

Pinochet - well that one worked out well. But look at the bright side - It sure boosted sales of cattle prods and resulted in a very nice play that was turned into a great movie starring Sigourney Weaver and Ben Kingsley.

for sending agents out to torture prominent enemy targets to death  

Operation Pheonix during the Vietnam war

for bombing a neutral country using chemical weapons

Cambodia

for using weapons outlawed by the UN (the kind that blow limbs off)

America used cluster bombs in Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq. As they are dropped from airplanes they are not classed as land mines. Each cluster bomb is composed of 200 to 700 bomblets. When the bomblet explodes it fragments into about 300 pieces of jagged steel. Pilots regularly fly at very high altitudes to avoid anti-aircraft fire. However this means that the bombs may fall indiscriminately and hit civilian not military targets

Cluster bombs may also become landmines. Each cluster bomblet is activated by an internal fuze, and is set to explode above ground, on impact, or to be time-delayed. Many cluster bombs fail to explode on impact.  

And the best bit about cluster bombs? They look exactly like food packet rations.


for ensuring that medical supplies did not reach civilians and thousands died in agony through lack of drugs

Sanctions. Do you know that Iraq' children cannot recieve books as they are sanctioned. Not that they really care as they spend most of their time dying nowdays - malnutrition, cancer (way to go depleated uranium) and any number of groovy ways.

for using depleated uranium on areas where it knew the civilian population would be exposed to it and cause cancer rates to rise to fifty percent of the population

Cancer rates in Southern Iraq have risen to about fifty percent in children - and you guessed it no drugs are getting in because they could be used to made WMDs so they have to treat cancer with panadol.

for managing to shoot more civilians than enemy troops

er - not that I am saying anthying against the highly trained American Army. I particularly liked the soldier who said throwing grenades was 'cool'

for managing to shoot more friendly troops than enemy troops

Well that will happen when you send your pilots out on speed.

for having its leader serve a fake turkey to bolster the morale of its troops and reassure them of the justification of having invaded another country (this is considered bad in some parts of the world - think WW2 and WW1)?




It is all relative isn't it?  

I just wonder if it is possible to find a court that might have the impartiality and the moral foundations to even attempt to begin to judge him.

Revenge shouldn't be a problem though. But revenge for what?

I know revenge for the 500 000 thousand children who will be killed by post war disease and malnutrition after Iraq was invaded (that is the second time - just add the a few hundred thousand from sanctions resulting from the last war). Oh hang on Saddam didn't invade Iraq..?  

So revenge for the 100 000 Iraqi soldiers killed during the war... no that doesn't sound right?

I know revenge for the two million refugees and the thirty thousand refugee deaths resulting in America attacking.. dang I am still coming back to the same problem - Saddam didn't attack Iraq.

I know revenge for the Secretary of State selling chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein in the eighties... no?

I know - how about not complying with UN weapons inspectors... Oh he did? Dang!

I know - how about having weapons of mass destruction?  

Oh he didn't?

How about attacking another soverign country and ignoring the UN... Oh shoot - that was America - really?

How about causing his own troops - about 160 thousand of his own troops medical problems and 25 thousand of them psychological trauma - no don't tell me...

How about September 11 - well that might have worked if the President hadn't admitted he hadn't had anything to do with it - on national television.

How about for being a really bad guy?

Now that one works. Yes he is a complete and utter murdering psycho. Didn't worry us before (especially when we were supplying him with weapons), but now for some reason we feel very upset about it.

I know - Lets put him through a kangaroo court, shoot him and get on with backing the next lot of butchers and murderers...

As I specıalıse in international law I understand national interest/self preservation is a time honoured pursuit and I respect this. It is the 'attempts' at moral justification that rather sickens me. That and the hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths as six percent of the world's population attempts to enforce its morals on the other 94 percent and then gets shirty when they get all stroppy about it.  

When the whole world knows it was a fake turkey - it is time to give it up.  

The whole thing is just - as it has always been.

I can't do anything but laugh after reading your post. It's just amazing how people are managing to make a negative reaction from such great news.

The people in Guatanamo are TERRORISTS. They blow up school buses filled with children and murder those who simply think differently than them. They don't deserve to have the same legal rights at others.

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Xenobia

I guess what lives underneath my words is my desperate hope that we never sprayed chemical weapons on anyone....

Well, sorry to rain on your parade, but:

Hong Hanh is falling to pieces. She has been poisoned by the most toxic molecule known to science; it was sprayed during a prolonged military campaign. The contamination persists. No redress has been offered, no compensation. The superpower that spread the toxin has done nothing to combat the medical and environmental catastrophe that is overwhelming her country. This is not northern Iraq, where Saddam Hussein gassed 5,000 Kurds in 1988. Nor the trenches of first world war France. Hong Hanh's story, and that of many more like her, is quietly unfolding in Vietnam today. Her declining half-life is spent unseen, in her home, an unremarkable concrete box in Ho Chi Minh City, filled with photographs, family plaques and yellow enamel stars, a place where the best is made of the worst.

Hong Hanh is both surprising and terrifying. Here is a 19-year-old who lives in a 10-year-old's body. She clatters around with disjointed spidery strides which leave her soaked in sweat. When she cannot stop crying, soothing creams and iodine are rubbed into her back, which is a lunar collage of septic blisters and scabs. "My daughter is dying," her mother says. "My youngest daughter is 11 and she has the same symptoms. What should we do? Their fingers and toes stick together before they drop off. Their hands wear down to stumps. Every day they lose a little more skin. And this is not leprosy. The doctors say it is connected to American chemical weapons we were exposed to during the Vietnam war."

There are an estimated 650,000 like Hong Hanh in Vietnam, suffering from an array of baffling chronic conditions. Another 500,000 have already died. The thread that weaves through all their case histories is defoliants deployed by the US military during the war. Some of the victims are veterans who were doused in these chemicals during the war, others are farmers who lived off land that was sprayed. The second generation are the sons and daughters of war veterans, or children born to parents who lived on contaminated land. Now there is a third generation, the grandchildren of the war and its victims.

This is a chain of events bitterly denied by the US government. Millions of litres of defoliants such as Agent Orange were dropped on Vietnam, but US government scientists claimed that these chemicals were harmless to humans and short-lived in the environment. US strategists argue that Agent Orange was a prototype smart weapon, a benign tactical herbicide that saved many hundreds of thousands of American lives by denying the North Vietnamese army the jungle cover that allowed it ruthlessly to strike and feint. New scientific research, however, confirms what the Vietnamese have been claiming for years. It also portrays the US government as one that has illicitly used weapons of mass destruction, stymied all independent efforts to assess the impact of their deployment, failed to acknowledge cold, hard evidence of maiming and slaughter, and pursued a policy of evasion and deception.

Teams of international scientists working in Vietnam have now discovered that Agent Orange contains one of the most virulent poisons known to man, a strain of dioxin called TCCD which, 28 years after the fighting ended, remains in the soil, continuing to destroy the lives of those exposed to it. Evidence has also emerged that the US government not only knew that Agent Orange was contaminated, but was fully aware of the killing power of its contaminant dioxin, and yet still continued to use the herbicide in Vietnam for 10 years of the war and in concentrations that exceeded its own guidelines by 25 times. As well as spraying the North Vietnamese, the US doused its own troops stationed in the jungle, rather than lose tactical advantage by having them withdraw. (http://www.guardian....,923715,00.html)

Originally posted by Blue Eyes

For some reason I find this unsatisfying.  

How do you mean "unsatisfying"? You're not satisfied that it's the real McCoy (as opposed to a double, a hoax by the US government or something)? Or you're not satisfied because you'd have preferred a different outcome to the capture of Saddam?

Originally posted by Xenobia

I'm with Daniel. OK, we got him. Now what?

Does it stop the insurgents in Iraq? No.

Does it stop Al Queda? No.

Does it make things worse for Americans around the world? Possibly.  

So...now what?

-- Xenobia

Perhaps I'm missing something, but whichever way you cut it the events of this weekend amount to A Good Thing, no?

I mean, I don't think anyone's pretending that everything's suddenly going to be fine and dandy from here on in and that all Iraq's problems are in the past. But in what way can the fact that Saddam has been pinched be interpreted as any kind of problem?

Originally posted by Xenobia

I'm with Daniel. OK, we got him. Now what?
-- Xenobia

He'll be tried and sentenced either to death or to life imprisonment. That's what. There is no other possible outcome. Why the need to ask: "Now what?"?

BTW, I think he ought to have "three squares and cable". He's going to need his health and strength for the trial.

Originally posted by Xenobia

Does it stop the insurgents in Iraq? No.

Not necessarily. It looks like it may prove a huge psychological blow to their campaign.

Originally posted by Xenobia

Does it stop Al Queda? No.

Well, no, but if stopping Al Qaeda was the main priority, why did we go to war with Saddam?

Originally posted by Xenobia

Does it make things worse for Americans around the world? Possibly.  

It's not just Americans who are fighting terrorism and being targeted by terrorism.

Originally posted by Xenobia

So...now what?

Answered above.

Originally posted by DanMan

The people in Guatanamo are TERRORISTS. They blow up school buses filled with children and murder those who simply think differently than them. They don't deserve to have the same legal rights at others.  

Who says all of them are terrorists? I'm willing to bet that some of them were simply unlucky enough to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. And why don't they deserve to have the same legal rights as others? A legal right is an absolute - it means everyone has it.

[Xenobia]

You are right Loomis. Vietnam. I had forgotten about that.

We humans stink...don't we?

-- Xenobia

[Dr Niles Crane]

'The people in Guatanamo are TERRORISTS. They blow up school buses filled with children and murder those who simply think differently than them. They don't deserve to have the same legal rights at others.'

Even the children in there?

[Joyce Carrington]

Originally posted by Xenobia
You are right Loomis.   Vietnam.  I had forgotten about that.

We humans stink...don't we?

-- Xenobia

Finally SOMEONE is catching on.

[Sensualist]

Originally posted by Sensualist


Add in Loomis' 'devil's advocating' and they would've blown up the place.

It would have been sheer chaos! (KAOS!!!)

The thread would have been closed. Completely deleated, even.  

Accusations of censorship and Law suits ...

Spoke too soon. The eloquent Loomis has joined the fray...

"Let's Go Get 'Em", old chum!!!!:cool:

[Loomis]

Originally posted by Dr Niles Crane

Even the children in there?  

Hey, Niles, don't you know they'd only have grown up to be anti-American terrorist scum? They're all cut from the same cloth, you know. The death penalty's too good for 'em, etc. etc.

Originally posted by Sensualist

Spoke too soon. The eloquent Loomis has joined the fray...

"Let's Go Get 'Em", old chum!!!!

Where do you stand on this trial business, Sensualist, old buddy? Me, I favour an international affair (with no death penalty).

[Xenobia]

Originally posted by JoyceCarrington


Finally SOMEONE is catching on.

Dear girl, I caught on to that a long time ago, and it does make it hard to look oneself in the mirror every morning, doesn't it?

-- Xenobia

[Prav_007]

I heard this on the radio " President Bush would love to see his home state of Texas for Saddam to be tried at" Well obviously, Saddam will get the death penalty. I think the only problem is, what is the worst punishment of death that can be given to him?

This will not likely happen, kinda humourous to me. Without question from any court he will be sentenced to death. But don't you think he should rot? I am against the death penalty, I see no reason for taking the life of an individual for justice, I thought the purpose of prison to keep individuals who commit crimes away from society, sorta like a timeout, to think what they did. From Saddam case, we are comparing apples to huge *** apples or orange..whatever you want to call it. But what do you think his punishment should be?

[Genrewriter]

Well, i think it would be fittingly ironic if he were simply put in a small circular cell for the rest of his life, the hole if you will.

[Prav_007]

Originally posted by Loomis


Not necessarily. It looks like it may prove a huge psychological blow to their campaign.

I don't think that is a valid argument to use to back down Iraqi insurgents. Still their will be more revolting, and bit of pieces from Saddams regime and supporters, more terrorist attacks against the Coalition forces. The reign of terror has not ended and spread throughout the Middleast. I think their will be more attacks against the Israelis from the Palesentinians. "An eye for an eye, will make the whole world blind. "

[Jriv71]

Originally posted by Blue Eyes


While I've already posted in regards to your posts in this thread, I just thought I'd draw attention to this line of logic. Well, actually, the lack thereof.

The line of logic is simple. Why post a distinctly anti-American rant and then deny it? I just want to know, that's all. It was anti-American post. It's allowed, I just wanted to see if the poster would admit it.

But I'm glad I 'amuse you' as you said in another post. It's that sentiment, when someone's opinion differs from yours, that they're somehow inferior, or that they amuse you, that I find offensive. Disagree with someone's opinion and insult them. Nice. If I've done that somewhere, I apologize, but don't talk down to me, just because you're against the war, or Americans in general. I could easily get nasty in return but, what's the point?

I'm sorry, I'll try not to disagree with you again, lest I amuse you (as Joe Pesci would say) like a ********n clown.

[booyeah_]

Say what you want about the Bush administration but they have not sunk to Saddam's level. Saddam is an evil SOB. When you start to see heads of women who want jobs impaled into the state capital, then we can talk about sinking to Saddam's level.

I believe that Iraqis, not UN bureacrats who may have an ultraliberal or anti-american agenda, should try Saddam.

As far as the whole "it makes you scum to kill Saddam" argument, I'll say this much. The judges at Nuremberg and FDR/Churchill are heroes in my book. They stood in the face of a great evil and stopped it. They didn't care about political correctness. Yes, ten Nazi leaders were executed but monsters like that shouldn't be able to live after the crimes they've committed to millions of people. (BTW, my grandmother was a survivor)

It's kind of like abortion. Some people find it immoral no matter what happens just like some people here find it immoral to execute a convicted despot no matter how many people he killed.

I hope we can agree on hoping that Iraq will become a flourshing country, where human rights are respected and fair Iraqis have hope. I wish Saddam will live long enough to see that and see himself become the shame of a booming democratic republic.

EDIT: About the terrible conditions of the poor prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, consider this. On average, these prisoners have gained 13 pounds over 14 months. They also get clean clothes and the Koran.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2083612/

[Doubleshot]

Has the thought occured to anyone that Sadam looks a lot like Nick Nolte right about now?

I can see the TV movie coming soon.

[TGO]

Originally posted by Jriv71


The line of logic is simple.  Why post a distinctly anti-American rant and then deny it?  I just want to know, that's all.  It was anti-American post.  It's allowed, I just wanted to see if the poster would admit it.

But I'm glad I 'amuse you' as you said in another post.  It's that sentiment, when someone's opinion differs from yours, that they're somehow inferior, or that they amuse you, that I find offensive.  Disagree with someone's opinion and insult them.  Nice.  If I've done that somewhere, I apologize, but don't talk down to me, just because you're against the war, or Americans in general.  I could easily get nasty in return but, what's the point?

I'm sorry, I'll try not to disagree with you again, lest I amuse you (as Joe Pesci would say) like a ********n clown.

So, you're the Ann Coulter-type then right? If anyone says anything bad about the US, YOU ARE TREASONOUS! Look, that was not an anti-American post by any means, it was to show the hypocrisy of the US. Which as Niles reminded us is an epic laundry-list. Would it be anti-UK if someone posted up a list of most of what the British goverment did during colonization of other countries? Why are you so convinced that what Niles said was so blatently anti-American?

Anyways, Saddam is captured. Good. Should have happened during the Gulf War, but I suppose fabricating a few details 12 years later, and lying about the threat he posed to the US government and the world did nicely enough.

[Robinson]

Originally posted by Doubleshot
Has the thought occured to anyone that Sadam looks a lot like Nick Nolte right about now?

I was thinking Tawny "Bachelor Party" Kitaen.

http://www.thesmokin...kitaenmug1.html

Like Saddam, Tawny was the object of many back in the mid-eighties.

[Felix_Leiter]

The site would have really caught fire had good old Derringer and Ray T been posting.

Well, it's getting to be a bit of a throwback to those days!

It's all about perspective.

"One man's truth is another man's lie."

[Genrewriter]

Originally posted by Doubleshot
Has the thought occured to anyone that Sadam looks a lot like Nick Nolte right about now?

I can see the TV movie coming soon.

He looked a bit like Charles Manson to me, mostly in the beard.

[Sensualist]

Originally posted by Loomis

Where do you stand on this trial business, Sensualist, old buddy? Me, I favour an international affair (with no death penalty).

Nooooo....I'm not going to get dragged into this one. I'm just going to maintain my nice big pearly smile, maintain my disposition, be a good little Sensualist and just link everything to dear old James Bond.

That way I won't have to resign or have my licence revoked.

[Sensualist]

Peace

[Sensualist]

Love

[Sensualist]

Merry Christmas and God Bless Everyone

AND

Special prayers for Jim and his Family:)

[MrDraco]

(Waves hands like Rumsfeld)
"This press briefing has turned in to the petting zoo, and i'm the ring master-Its out of my hands."

[Jriv71]

Originally posted by TGO


So, you're the Ann Coulter-type then right? If anyone says anything bad about the US, YOU ARE TREASONOUS! Look, that was not an anti-American post by any means, it was to show the hypocrisy of the US. Which as Niles reminded us is an epic laundry-list. Would it be anti-UK if someone posted up a list of most of what the British goverment did during colonization of other countries? Why are you so convinced that what Niles said was so blatently anti-American?

Anyways, Saddam is captured. Good. Should have happened during the Gulf War, but I suppose fabricating a few details 12 years later, and lying about the threat he posed to the US government and the world did nicely enough.

Wrong. Treason is a serious offense. I said no such thing about "Niles." I just believe that he/she (as you could tell from "Niles" ' post) dislikes or hates this country and everything we stand for. Sounded like it. Read it again. I didn't even dispute everything he/she talked about. That's why I also object to "Niles" referring to mindless jingoism. I don't agree with everything we do as a nation, there's just no point to sit there and list all of our faults (while calling me mindless), right after we've captured a ruthless dictator, as an attempt to compare us to him. That's right, read it again, the attempt was to (very cleverly) compare us to the Saddams of the world. That's borderline dispicable and (I cannot waver on this) anti-American.

By the way, if you think that the threat he posed was fabricated, ignore the gassing of his own people, ignore what 9/11 taught us about rogue governments allowing terrorist training camps in their country, just read this.

http://www.theweekly...03/033jgqyi.asp

Maybe all this stuff is fabricated too, but it was worth taking him out.