Saddam found, WMA not

[Metallic_Kitty]

I shall start off by saying hello to all of you out there who know me, Kitty is back! Also kindly thanks for the birthday congrats by the moderators in my website guestbook (you hackers..)

Now back to business...

The whole world is now happy that a dictator has been caught. I however cannot help but finding a slight difference between the expressions of happiness on the two sides of the Atlantic. In Europe it is common to say that Saddam must be judged, punished etc. in same terms as the Americans express it. Though, the Europeans add that it is not to be forgotten that the whole action was illegal from the viewpoint of international law.

Imagine that the Russians would for example become fed up with some maffia kings terrorizing people of Chicago or New York. Also imagine that they would decide to occupy the US and cleanse the gangsters. To motivate their illegal action they would for instance come up with theories that the US possesses some dangers ie WMA. And, as effective as the Russians are they would, in matter of some weeks, execute the invasion and occupation. They also capture the gangsters in question, expose them on national television - expecting that the American people would be very happy with the deed.

You most probably understand what it is that I want to say here. The American gangsters are to be cleansed by the American people. The Iraqi gangsters and dictators are to be cleansed by the Iraqi people. Why interfere in other people's business?

Of course, it is satisfying that the beast Saddam is no longer a threat for the Iraqis but that is another question, is it? Give it some thought...

Sincerely,
Metallic Kitty

 

[spacemanspiff]

Saddam's crimes were not local, not solely dished out to Iraqis. He is an international menace, thus he must be judged according to the standards of those he has waged war against.

If we were to let the Iraqis judge him, there would be little hope of true justice being served. Look how quickly the Iraqis started saying that they 'longed for the days when Saddam was ruling their country'. The Iraqis would rather have had Saddam and his massacres than Coalition forces trying to keep peace.

Does that make much sense? No, it shows how unused the Iraqis are to the concept of freedom.

I dont expect them to ever embrace democracy, but they should be allowed the luxury of living under a balanced government, not a violent tyrant.

What is there to be 'judged' anyways? He is guilty of ordering the deaths of tens of thousands of Iraqis. He should be sentenced to die like he had them die. brutal, torture, slow, and painful. That's justice.

 

[Metallic_Kitty]

spacemanspiff

Hello again,
Do you think that internationally working US gangsters (ie drug business) too are international problems? Should it be alright that some foreign country makes military intervention to clean them out by invasion and occupation of the US?

It is dangerous to play God in relation to other nations and their understanding of such concepts as 'freedom', 'democracy' etc. Keep your freedom and your democracy for yourself and let other people live their lives as it suits them.

Look at the Medieval Times when we burnt witches at stakes. Did the Middle Eastern people invade Europe and assasinate our priests or kings?

But of course, you perhaps mean that the superpower status gives the right to the US to travel around the world with warships introducing their own political system along the coasts which those warships pass.

Dear friend, it is very possible that your and mine understanding of the concept freedom vary. We probably even have different general views upon life and the world but we can exchange our thoughts. Perhaps we can learn something from each other.

 

[Cool Hand Luke 22:36]

metallic_kitty wrote:

Imagine that the Russians would for example become fed up with some maffia kings terrorizing people of Chicago or New York. Also imagine that they would decide to occupy the US and cleanse the gangsters. To motivate their illegal action they would for instance come up with theories that the US possesses some dangers ie WMA. And, as effective as the Russians are they would, in matter of some weeks, execute the invasion and occupation. They also capture the gangsters in question, expose them on national television - expecting that the American people would be very happy with the deed.

You most probably understand what it is that I want to say here. The American gangsters are to be cleansed by the American people. The Iraqi gangsters and dictators are to be cleansed by the Iraqi people. Why interfere in other people's business?

Of course, it is satisfying that the beast Saddam is no longer a threat for the Iraqis but that is another question, is it? Give it some thought...

OK, here are my thoughts:

I think your analogy is false and can be dismissed as just more rhetoric from one dissappointed by any good news coming out of Iraq.

The Chicago gangsters never invaded Canada, never conspired with or provided training or money to terrorists who then slaughtered thousands of innocent Canadians, never committed mass genocide against the people of DeKalb or Cook Counties, never ignored over a decade of international sanctions designed to force them to alter their ways, and the American people were finally able arrest and imprison the Chicago gangsters without needing the help of an outside force did as the Iraqis.

You also ignore the fact the the WMD's were just one of many reasons given by the President for the War.

 

[TallPine]

It is dangerous to play God in relation to other nations and their understanding of such concepts as 'freedom',

I'll have to agree with you on that one, Kitty.

With one exception - God seems to allow everyone free will. If we really "played God" then we would leave everyone alone.

 

[Obiwan]

I think the distinction between a local threat and a regime that attacks innocents in their own country and abroad is an important one.

If said gangsters were in a postion to wage war...and their citizenry had proven unable/unwilling to stop them....

Then you might see exactly the scenario you have imagined.

The world (UN) gave Iraq an ultimatum....the U.S., UK, etc.....just enforced it.

 

[CMichael]

Your analogy doesn't work. The international community sanctioned war with Iraq in 1991. To gain the cease fire Hussein had to sign off on some committments. Such as documenting the destruction of his WMD

He never did this. Therefore, the cease fire agreement has been breeched.

 

[Shooter 2.5]

An American gangster wasn't launching missiles into Canada.

An American gangster wasn't invading Mexico.

An American ganster in Chicago wasn't using poison gas to wipe out citizens in Indiana.

An American gangster wasn't in control of the entire country and causing instability in North America.

A Freedom loving people came to the aid of an oppressed country. It's the same as we on thehighroad.com work for our CCW Rights so we can come to the aid of victims of crime

While cowards stand by and do nothing.

 

[harpethriver]

If we just sit at home and never attempt to right wrongs perpetrated on citizens of other countries then the perps would just get better at it, become stonger and more confident, and eventually attack us as well. Yeah-we must pick and choose our battles appropriately-and can't police the entire world. Exactly what did the good citizens of Europe do to incur the wrath of Hitler? Nothing-and that's exactly what was done to stop him until it was too late. You know the cliche' about "history/doomed to repeat" etc.-how about this one-"There can be no peace without freedom".

 

[Il Duce]

Ye of little faith...

If we were to let the Iraqis judge him, there would be little hope of true justice being served. look how quickly the Iraqis started saying that they 'longed for the days when Saddam was ruling their country'. The Iraqis would rather have had Saddam and his massacres than Coalition forces trying to keep peace.

How quickly we forget what happened after Gulf War I. We had the support of Iraqi citizens, but we pulled out before deposing Saddam. Those Iraqi citizens who helped the U.S. paid a horrible price. They were tortured, killed, etc. Their families were tortured, killed, etc. Suppose for a second that you were an Iraqi citizen. How quickly would you publicly support the U.S.? If a microphone were put in your face, and you knew there might be a possibility of Saddam coming back to power, what would you say?

it shows how unused the Iraqis are to the concept of freedom.

Freedom is not something you need to learn or grow comfortable with. Freedom comes as naturally as breathing. I think we will see in the coming months (if the media reports it) a distinct change in the Iraqi people. Mark my words...

 

[Balog]

Uhmm, what's a WMA?

 

[Shooter 2.5]

http://komo1000news.com/audio/kvi_aircheck_031003.mp3

Metallic_Kitty = Andrea

 

[TallPine]

1) if we invaded Iraq for national security reasons, such as supporting and harboring terrorists, then it would be valid. They were warned, after all, right after 9-11-01.

2) if we invaded Iraq to free the Iraqi people, then we were sticking our nose in where we don't belong.

In other words, the "selfish" reason for invading Iraq is more valid than the "unselfish" (heroic) reason, as strange as that may seem.

If we are concerned about human rights of the people in other countries, then why don't we invade China ???

But then if we are talking about terrorists, what about Saudi Arabia ...?

 

[Hkmp5sd]

The Europeans have a history of appeasement. Some also have the history of preemptive surrender, which also includes turning a blind eye to terrorists so they will not perform any terrorist acts in that country. That is why they view the issue differently from Americans.

There is no question Saddam was seeking WMD. There is no question he had used them in the past. There is no question that should he acquire a nuclear weapon, he would have used it, whether in the mideast or via a terrorist network. This makes him a threat to the United States and warrants his removal.

Isn't it ironic that we jumped through hoops trying to figure out how the 9/11 plot wasn't stopped by our intelligence services before they killed several thousand Americans, but some are complaining about removing Saddam before he can actually kill several thousand Americans?

My personal viewpoint is that any WMD possessed by Saddam went straight across the border into Syria the instant American troops crossed the border into Iraq.

 

[spacemanspiff]

Do you think that internationally working US gangsters (ie drug business) too are international problems? Should it be alright that some foreign country makes military intervention to clean them out by invasion and occupation of the US?

our gangs arent necessarily international problems, so your analagy fails. however, if another country wished to extradite those in this country who funnel drugs and money through the states, by all means, do so. lord knows our country isnt really fighting a war on drugs.

tell me metallic, are YOU personally threatened by Americas War Machine? if not, this discussion is all academic. however, if you happened to be an Iraqi that is loyal to Saddam and the tyranny with which he ruled, then we have points to discuss.

 

[JohnBT]

WMA in Virginia stands for Wildlife Management Area. (And FWIW, DU stands for Ducks Unlimited, not Democratic Underground.)



"Why interfere in other people's business?"

Tell it to the friends and relatives of the people Saddam has murdered, maimed and tortured. Tell it to the nations he has attacked. Tell it to anybody but me, because I don't think you're making much sense with your shallow arguments.

We're all in this thing called life together and you want to let the tyrants run rampant.

John

 

[4v50 Gary]

It may well be better for Saddam to be tried by his own. Besides, we don't stone people here.

Alternatively, I'm sure the Iranians would love to try him. He's not exactly high on their list of favorite people either.

 

[fallingblock]

WMA?..........

Worthy Media Assertions?

Women Making Ablutions?

Wisdom of Mass Absolution?

Just what is Metallic Kitty trying to say here?

 

[twoblink]

Kitty! Welcome again!

You most probably understand what it is that I want to say here. The American gangsters are to be cleansed by the American people. The Iraqi gangsters and dictators are to be cleansed by the Iraqi people. Why interfere in other people's business?

I agree..

But the other post nailed it.

I'm against smoking; but as a libertarian, go and get lung cancer! Smoke 10 packs a day! Smoke 20 packs in your house until your walls are brown!! YOUR BUSINESS.. Except when you start smoking in MY HOUSE..

So it's an Iraqi problem until it starts to threaten American lives..

WMD? If seening Bin Laden on TV telling other terrorists to bomb America.. if that isn't a WMD, I don't know what is..

 

[Tamara]

Imagine that the Russians would for example become fed up with some maffia kings terrorizing people of Chicago or New York.

It would be nice if the Russkies would come pick up their gangsters from Chicago and New Yawk, as they're becoming public nuisances. However, since their partners in crime are running the show in Moscow, I don't hold out a lot of hope for it.

 

[jimpeel]

Metallic_Kitty = Andrea

 

[Don Gwinn]

If the mafia were the legal rulers of Chicago, had invaded Canada across the Great Lakes, and were thought to be actively seeking nuclear weapons so that they could wipe out the Russian Mob by nuking Moscow, the Russians might be justified. And then you might see the same kind of celebrations in the streets of Chicago as you saw in Iraq this weekend.

Unfortunately, the brutal Chicago regime shows no sign of falling.

 

[Khornet]

Welcome back, Kitty

If you cannot support a decision unless every aspect of it is perfectly justifiable, and cannot support it unless you yourself have never done a wrong thing, you are telling the world that your personal sense of righteousness is more important than the suffering of the Iraqi people.

That is what Germany and France did, as did Canada. I wear their contempt with pride. At least my country did something about it instead of worrying about what other people might think.

 

[Khornet]

JohnBT,

to me WMA means Chickahominy, just outside Williamsburg, where I spent many happy hours hunting in my Navy days.

 

[boltaction]

"International Law?"

I have to say something about this dribble called "International law":

Sorry, but our government is "of the people", and I just can't remember ever going to the ballot box to vote for "international law" makers. Signing charters like the UN's does not mean that we are subject to the whim of Kofi Annan, who makes up, by fiat, statements like: the UN is the "sole source of legitimacy on the use of force" in the world. We have to ask permission to wage war from a body populated 25% or so by dictators? Those whose governments push "International law" are the ones who are the greatest threats to individual freedom. And please note that "International Law" (I laugh whenever I write that!) would DISARM US, and would have Americans tried in international courts populated by judges NOT appointed by elected US representatives, in front of juries who are NOT peers, and subject to laws NOT made by American elected representatives. Who can spell "democracy"?

I say all this as someone who was not crazy about going into Iraq (there are clear pluses and minuses about it). One of my objections was that I am not a Wilsonian (international do-gooder) on foreign policy. I hold this position precisely because I am sick of spending American lives to solve other people's problems, ONLY to have us trashed by the "world community". On the other hand, in our representative government, "I" do not, by myself, make up foreign policy - I elect others to do that, and I have to admit, the totality of our current government's policies,(and I do not approve of all their methods, not even close), have coincided with a lack of 9-11 type terrorist attacks on our soil, since, well, 9-11.