• In total there are 2 users online :: 1 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
    Most users ever online was 616 on Thu Jan 18, 2024 7:47 pm

Saddam Hussein is caught!

A forum dedicated to friendly and civil conversations about domestic and global politics, history, and present-day events.
Forum rules
Do not promote books in this forum. Instead, promote your books in either Authors: Tell us about your FICTION book! or Authors: Tell us about your NON-FICTION book!.

All other Community Rules apply in this and all other forums.
User avatar
Chris OConnor

1A - OWNER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 17002
Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 2:43 pm
21
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 3502 times
Been thanked: 1307 times
Gender:
Contact:
United States of America

Re: United States & Iraq

Unread post

MontyQuote:There was a secret energy meeting in early 2001. In the meeting, what was shared was a current map of Iraq and its known reserves. Also included, was Saddam's plea to other nations to place bids on repairing his neglected oil wells and delivery systems, to search for additional new reserves of oil, and to build new oil wells. United States and Britain need not apply.If this meeting was "secret" how is it that you know not only when it happened, but also specifically what was discussed? Something tells me that further investigation will show this meeting was simply a "private" meeting. Most meetings are private.If you have some additional information about this secret meeting I sure would like to see it. Maybe a few links telling us who attended the meeting and why the meeting was called. Perhaps let us know why these meetings are private, and how often they occur. Was this an emergency meeting called to respond to a specific threat, or was this an annual meeting of the heads of our nations oil companies?Quote:Money that financed that terrorism and other Osama Bin Laden activity came from the American dollar purchasing Saudi Oil for our hungry gas guzzling and utterly unnecessary SUVs.How do you know this? These Saudi suicidal maniacs were reported to have been trained by Osama within Afghanistan. If true, this would probably mean that Osama recruited them out of Saudi and financed their training and entire mission. Wasn't Osama a rather wealthy man? What makes you think Saudi Arabia financed these terrorists?And who says SUV's are utterly unnecessary? Aren't ice skating rinks, cotton candy and miniature golf also utterly unnecessary? What is so wrong about wanting to purchase goods and services that enhances owns standard of living? SUV's are fun to drive, comparatively safe, and generally carry a larger payload than smaller vehicles. True, they use more natural resources than lighter more fuel efficient vehicles, but I don't feel comfortable with the word "unnecessary." They are desired and this matters. Personally, I would like to see the evidence that our oil supply is destined to dry up anytime soon. I'm not saying it won't, but for years and years I have heard liberals talk about how we are nearing the end of the line...yet never have I seen a credible source back this claim up. Do you have any links?The issue seems to be that the United States doesn't have a large enough oil supply to address our own needs, and we must therefore rely on the middle east and other areas for our needs. When are we going to start drilling in Alaska? I've heard there are massive untapped oil fields in Alaska. Quote:There are also hints that Iraq may be sitting on more oil than we thought and may actually have the largest reserves in the world.While this may be true I have yet to hear it reported. Do you have any links? If it is true...I can understand our nation going into a panic and wanting to wipe out Saddam, but thats something we can get into later.Quote:To make matters worse, Saddam was planning on wrecking our economy within a year by making agreements with many oil trading partners to make the Euro dollar the means of exchange for oil rather than the current U. S. dollar.Did Saddam really have this power? How do you know this? I've never heard such a claim and would really like to look into it futher. If it is true it really could have had devastating repurcussions for the US. But before I believe it I would like some sound evidence that it was in the works. I hope you are just as skeptical.Quote:We could not let the small prehistoric raptors enjoy the feast of Iraq. The Tyrannosaurus U. S. of A lurched in for the kill, causing all the raptors to flee in squelching protest and sit on the sidelines to regroup.Lets assume you're correct and all that you said was going to happen was really going to happen. Can you really blame the United States for protecting its interests? I don't. If Saddam was about to take actions that could jeopardize our economy and our place at the top of the food chain, then our leaders had an obligation to act and act fast. I commend them.Quote:By holding on to Iraq, we have secured ourselves, the most hoggy energy consumers of the world, the last bastion of cheap quality oil. We will be able to ride the downward oil supply curve right down to the end; we will not be the ones caught running out of cheap oil first.I hope you're right. I hope our leaders were wise enough to see it coming and take the corrective measures to protect our interests. It also should be known that the next fuel source invented/discovered will, more than likely, be a product of the United States scientific endeavors and our evil capitalistic system. This big bad gas-guzzling nation is responsible for most of the worlds creature comforts. Capitalism works. Dangle the carrot of immense wealth out in front of enough educated people and you have a recipe for success. Damn I love this country.Quote:And, once we repair the oil structures of Iraq and get the oil flowing at a secure rate for our consumption, the Tyrannosaurus Rex, can turn its gaze back on the Saudi's, no longer afraid of Saudi reprisal for our call of retribution for the 9/11 attracts by Saudi citizens.Exactly! And we have the right to respond to their contribution to the most horrific attack on US soil in our nations history. Whats so bad about being the Tyrannosaurus Rex? I'll tell you...nothing unless you're the raptor. And does the threat of being ripped apart by a T-Rex make the raptor less blood-thirsty and opportunistic itself? Hell no. Raptors make a living out of ripping apart prey lower down the food chain.Nations are nothing more than social organisms....big animals competing for limited resources and the one spot at the top of the food chain. There is room for one only and we happen to be that one. Does this make us inherently evil? Only to those social animals lower on the food chain. But you can bet your ass that, given the opportunity, ANY nation on this planet would gladly topple us and take their place at the top. And guess what? Someday it will happen. Tis the law of the jungle.Quote:And hopefully, we will give a fair price for the oil.Would a fair price take into consideration the money that the United States has spent for this war? Or is it fair that we lost billions of dollars and hundreds of lives and the Iraqis don't pay for any of it?Quote:I would have been more supportive to go into Iraq if our position from the start was the same as our approach to Yugoslavia, that we wish to go in and capture Saddam for his crimes against civilization and to try him, and then assist in developing democracy.I agree.Chris "When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward,for there you have been, and there you will always want to be."
User avatar
ZachSylvanus
Agrees that Reading is Fundamental
Posts: 286
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2002 4:54 pm
21
Location: Fort Collins, CO
Been thanked: 3 times
Contact:

Global Warming

Unread post

That's a tenuous claim, Monty. Global warming continues to be the great unprovable thing it's always been. Some say it's a fact, and have proof; others say it isn't, and have proof. Others argue it is, but it's natural and the increased consumption of fossil fuels has little to do with it.
sandor at the zoo

Re: Hmmm

Unread post

Niall, my apologies for taking so long to get back to you. The holidays were simply busy as hell, and I spent no time at all online until today. Anyway, I did a bit of research on some of your assertions and here's where I stand.Quote:When they knew that Saddam was an evil murderer, when they knew that he slaughtered civilians, they continued to support him.This is the one that I really had to research. You're essentially claiming that Rumsfeld, Regan, and Wolfowitz knew that Saddam was slaughtering civilians - close to half a million of them since 1980 - but continued to aid him anyway. Because I don't have time to look deeply into every person's life who was involved in the affair, I chose to concentrate on Rumsfeld; he's the one who holds the most real power today and is largely responsible for our Iraq policy. Here is some of the research I consulted:usgovinfointerview with James Mannbio and resume (also has links to more Rumsfeld info)golden jackboot awardBBC's "hawk" profileNowhere in any of this does it indicate that Saddam had Rumsfeld's support when he gassed Kurdish civilians in 1988 or during his pogrom of Shiite political enemies in 1991. During his visits with Saddam and Tariq Aziz in the 1983 - 1984 time frame Rumsfeld certainly learned that they were the ugliest sort of allies imaginable, but this doesn't amount to complicity in genocide. It does amount to questionable foreign policy decisions by both Rumsfeld and Regan, and I have already conceded the point that you can make a case against them for this.And it must be noted that most of the information I found was highly partisan (the links I included are the most balanced articles and papers of the bunch). Those who like Rumsfeld touted his accomplishments while ignoring his failings; those who dislike him tended to do the opposite. All in all I emerged with pretty much the same opinion I entered with: Rumsfeld was and is a man with a very, very hard job who made some questionable decisions about the Iran / Iraq affair in the early 80's. I think there were times he could have done better, but I know there are times he could have done much worse. As a writer and a historian I (thankfully) don't have to make the kind of life-and-death decisions that he does, so unless there is clear evidence of criminal intent or negligence I'm not willing to second-guess Secretary Rumsfeld at this point.I urge you once again to step out of your shoes for a second and (try to) put yourself in his. Are you sure your decisions would have been any better? Do you even really know enough about the actual situation to say one way or the other?Quote:THe Iraqi people didn't know what Saddam was doing. The American people didn't know about the atrocities. Most members of the Bathist party didn't know. The US government did. Others also knew, buts lets face it, the US has almost always been the leader on all issues for Europe and the other ex-colonies. I hold those who knew, but who did not speak out responsible, but to a lesser extent than I hold the US responsible. The US could have made a difference. Few other countries could have.Your attitude here skates perilously close to "compassionate chauvinism". A blogger that I know describes it thusly:If we are responsible, then [the rest of the world] cannot be. And that can only be because they are not capable of being responsible. They are not truly adults; they are children or beasts who respond to conditions in predictable ways. We do not hold children to the same standard of responsibility as we hold adults, and [compassionate chauvinists] don't hold the people of the world to those standards either.We have a paternalistic obligation to control how everyone else in the world behaves, through our acts towards them. They will merely react to us; all responsibility is here. We are the only moral thinking people on earth and thus the only ones who can sin. If we can only bring ourselves to be sufficiently kind and generous to them, then they will live good lives. They are innocent, they cannot know sin, for they are not sufficiently sophisticated to do so. They are less than we are.Why is it only America that is responsible for Saddam, when many European and Arab nations also aided him with money, weapons, and intelligence? You quite clearly do not hold them to the same standard of morals and actions as those to which you hold us. Why?Quote:You agreed that Brutus was guilty of bribery (didn't you, I may be wrong) so why aren't the polititions who were around at the time, who knew what Saddam was doing, but who ignored his actions, also guilty of murder?I simply don't see the same correlation between Brutus' actions and Rumsfeld's that you do. I understand the analogy your trying to make just fine, but I don't find it valid. As is often the case with drama, Brutus' villainy is obvious and one-dimensional. In the real world, things are seldom so clear-cut.Quote:You see what made Iran scary, what made the USSR evil, was not what they were, but what they did. I could live under communism. I could live under a theocracy. They aren't bad by nature. What made those regimes evil, was their actions. People can say that you have to fight fire with fire, but if you do, what makes you any better than the enemy you are trying to fight?Have you ever lived under a theocracy or communist dictatorship, Niall? I know people who've lived under both, and they do not share your idealistic viewpoint. A former lover of mine grew up behind the iron curtain, and she once told me that every time she talks to an American socialist she walks the thin line between real and imaginary murder. Your statement above displays exactly the kind of sociopolitcal naivete that drives her crazy. I agree that, on paper, communism and theocracy can work just fine ... provided they are run by perfectly moral men with perfectly moral intentions. But I challenge you to point to one - just one - communist or theocratic nation in the real world that does not hold its population under the boot of oppression or grinding poverty (or both). There is something inherently wrong with communism and theocracy: They don't work.Secular democracy, for all of it's imperfections, does work. And it works far better when coupled with a free-market economy. Looking around the world proves this as well. You can spout social theory all day, Niall, but when all is said and done the real world provides the lessons that matter. If you read nothing else this year, read this: Seven Signs of Non-competitive StatesI rarely refer people to outside works, but Peters' article is one of the most important written in the past decade. And keep in mind that he wrote it several years before 11Sept01.As to evil actions and not "fighting fire with fire", I say only that we must fight when the consequences of not fighting are higher than those of fighting. And also that your allusion to the idea that "our" tactics are just as bad as "theirs" is ludicrous; if we used the same tactics as bin Laden or Saddam the entire Arab, Persian, and African worlds would have been utterly destroyed within a week of the WTC and Pentagon attacks.Quote:Saddam's sin was not his betrayal of the US, it was his actions. He murdered. The West handed him the gun, loaded it and watched him shoot down innocents in cold blood. That made them guilty of bad judgment. What makes them guilty of murder is the fact that after they had witnessed the bastard's actions, they handed him more bullets.Addressed above. Quote:I believe our systems have failed because those same people that made those descisions are still in power today and we still use those same tactics. And whats most disgusting, is not even the fact that such tactics are used, but that lies are still used to justify these actions.I disagree. The Bush Administration has shown a clear divergence from the cold war-era policy of containment and proxy wars. As to lies and what they are being used to justify, I'll have to ask you to provide evidence of the lies and the justifications. Making accusations is easy, Niall, researching the topic and uncovering verifiable evidence to support your points is not. Trust me, I just spent hours doing it.S
User avatar
Dissident Heart

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
I dumpster dive for books!
Posts: 1790
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2003 11:01 am
20
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 18 times

A Sadaam Chronology, with US Fingerprints

Unread post

Sept. 22, 1980 -- Sends forces into Iran; war last eight years.[When Iraq invaded Iran, the United Nations Security Council waited four days before holding a meeting. On September 28, it passed Resolution 479 calling for an end to the fighting, but which significantly did not condemn (nor even mention) the Iraqi aggression and did not demand a return to internationally recognized boundaries. As Ralph King, who has studied the UN response in detail, concluded, "The Council more or less deliberately ignored Iraq's actions in September 1980." The U.S. delegate noted that Iran, which had itself violated Security Council resolutions on the U.S. embassy hostages, could hardly complain about the Council's lackluster response. (R.P.H. King, "The United Nations and the Iran‑Iraq War, 1980‑1986," in The United Nations and the Iran‑Iraq War, ed. Brian Urquhart and Gary Sick, New York: Ford Foundation, August 1987.)Despite the fact that Iraq had been the aggressor in this war and that Iraq was the first to use chemical weapons, the first to launch air attacks on cities, and the initiator of the tanker war, the United States tilted toward Iraq. The U.S. removed Iraq from its list of terrorist states in 1982, sent Donald Rumsfeld to Baghdad as Reagan's envoy to meet with Saddam Hussein in 1983 and 1984 to discuss economic cooperation, re-established diplomatic relations in November 1984, made available extensive loans and subsidies, provided intelligence information, encouraged its allies to arm Iraq, and engaged in military actions in the Persian Gulf against Iran. The United States also provided dual-use equipment that it knew Iraq was using for military purposes. (See Joyce Battle, ed., "Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein: The U.S. Tilts toward Iraq, 1980-1984," National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 82, Feb. 25, 2003, www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/ ]March 28, 1988 -- Uses chemical weapons against Kurdish town of Halabja, killing estimated 5,000 civilians.[From Iraq's first use of chemical weapons in 1983, the U.S. took a very restrained view. When the evidence of Iraqi use of these weapons could no longer be denied, the U.S. issued a mild condemnation, but made clear that this would have no effect on commercial or diplomatic relations between the United States and Iraq. Iran asked the Security Council to condemn Iraq's chemical weapons use, but the U.S. delegate to the U.N. was instructed to try to prevent a resolution from coming to a vote, or else to abstain. An Iraqi official told the U.S. that Iraq strongly preferred a Security Council presidential statement to a resolution and did not want any specific country identified as responsible for chemical weapons use. On March 30, 1984, the Security Council issued a presidential statement condemning the use of chemical weapons, without naming Iraq as the offending party. (Battle, www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/ .) At the same time that the U.S. government had knowledge of that the Iraqi military was using chemical weapons, it was providing intelligence and planning assistance to the Iraqi armed forces. (Patrick Tyler, "Officers Say U.S. Aided Iraq In War Despite Use Of Gas," New York Times, Aug. 18, 2002, p. 1.) When Iraq used chemical weapons in March 1988 against Halabja, there was no condemnation from Washington. (Dilip Hiro, "When US turned a blind eye to poison gas," The Observer, September 1, 2002, p. 17.) "In September 1988, the House of Representatives voted 388 to 16 in favor of economic sanctions against Iraq, but the White House succeeded in having the Senate water down the proposal. In exchange for Export-Import Bank credits, Iraq merely had to promise not to use chemical weapons again, with agricultural credits exempted even from this limited requirement." (Rubin, "The United States and Iraq: From Appeasement to War," p. 261.)]A Saddam Chronology by Stephen Shalom www.zmag.org/content/show...temID=4685 Edited by: Dissident Heart at: 12/30/03 2:30 pm
User avatar
Dissident Heart

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
I dumpster dive for books!
Posts: 1790
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2003 11:01 am
20
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Some Myths that led us to War

Unread post

MYTHSaddam Hussein is "gaining the power to threaten our cities with annihilation."--New York Times columnist William SafireMYTHSaddam Hussein is "a man who loves to link up with al-Qaeda."--George W. BushMYTHThe Iraqi government could "deploy chemical or biological weapons within 45 minutes of an order to do so."--British Prime Minister Tony BlairMYTH"This is a regime that agreed to international inspections, then kicked out the inspectors."--George W. BushMYTHBefore the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq massed troops along the border with Saudi Arabia, threatening an invasion.MYTHIraqi soldiers ripped Kuwaiti babies out of incubators when they invaded Kuwait in August 1990MYTH"America is a friend to the people of Iraq."--George W. BushMYTHThe Bush administration is "driven not by any lust for global domination, but by out-and-out Wilsonian idealism: we want to make the Middle East safe for democracy."--William Safirewww.zmag.org/content/show...temID=2528
sandor at the zoo

Re: United States & Iraq

Unread post

Jeremy says:Quote:You make a case for exactly what was happening before the Bush attack; inspections, coalition building, caution. Get the facts, take action. A coalition came together in '91. It was coming together in 2002.Unlike you, Jeremy, I ran out of patience with the UN a long time ago. I am also - more recently - out of patience with France, Germany, Russia, and the rest of the Axis of Weasels. We have no obligation to clear our actions with them in any case. Let me be very pointed on my position here: The government of The United States of America is the final word on American foreign policy.I am not a post-modern "citizen of the world", I am a citizen of The United States of America. Our security concerns are not addressed by the UN, they are addressed by the state department - or failing that, the department of defense. Both of which are administered by officials (or their appointees) that are elected by Americans according to laws established in The Constitution of the United States of America.Quote:Bush did not convince Congress and the American people to go to war now over "The mere possibility that such a man could acquire a nuke or sell canisters of Sarin gas to terrorists"; he took us to war with lies about an immediate threat that just wasn't there.I disagree completely. I was never under the impression - before Bush's "war speeches" or after them - that Saddam was ready to fly a Soviet-era MIG over Tampa and unload a canister of chemical death. Most of us who track world events closely were worried primarily about Saddam selling his knowledge of WMD - not WMD themselves - to terrorist organizations. IIRC, The President's speeches calling for war stressed this potential threat more so than any immediate threat.But even so, I'll grant your premise for the sake of argument: Bush said Saddam had WMD, no WMD were found after the war ... so Bush lied.Are you sure about that?First of all, what if the Bush Administration honestly believed that Saddam was sitting on canisters of Sarin and Smallpox and Anthrax? What if they really thought that he was getting close to putting together a nuke? Saddam himself encouraged this point of view in his enemies, because one of the currencies he dealt in was fear. We weren't the only ones who believed it - the UN did too - and based on that information we had been asking them to inspect him for over four years. Secondly, just how sure are you that there aren't WMD in Iraq right now? Saddam had 10 years to hide them in a country far bigger than most US states. They could be literally anywhere, and our experts haven't even been there for a year yet.Why is your automatic assumption that lies were involved? There's no chance that you're just attributing the worst of many possible motives to someone you see as a political enemy, is there?I said it to you before and I'll say it again: The 2003 invasion of Iraq did not occur in a vacuum. It was preceded by more than a decade of useless condemnations and meaningless resolutions, and by almost five years of blatant cease-fire violations on Saddam's part. Precisely how much longer would you have preferred to wait for a "coalition to come together", Jeremy? Until London or Los Angeles actually did disappear in a nuclear flash? Because I assure you that's what it would have taken for the UN to act.Quote:Opposition to this war is not blanket pacifism; at least not for me, nor many of the people I talk to. It is opposition to how and when it was done.I understand it's not blanket pacifism. The UN doesn't espouse blanket pacifism either. But it does require a smoking gun to take action, and as the now-famous line goes, "The problem with a smoking gun is that it's already been fired". Seeing as how the smoking gun, in this case, would be 10,000 or 100,000 or 1,000,000 dead Americans I'm not willing to wait for the fucker to go off. No, it's not blanket pacifism, but for the thousands or millions who would die it's effective pacifism. And while those of us who lived to bury the corpses might also live to see the end of that pacifism, I'd personally prefer to not have to explain to my children why there's only a radioactive desert where our nations Capital used to be.S
User avatar
Dissident Heart

1F - BRONZE CONTRIBUTOR
I dumpster dive for books!
Posts: 1790
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2003 11:01 am
20
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Re: Hmmm

Unread post

Quote:Rumsfeld was and is a man with a very, very hard job who made some questionable decisions about the Iran / Iraq affair in the early 80's. I think there were times he could have done better, but I know there are times he could have done much worse. As a writer and a historian I (thankfully) don't have to make the kind of life-and-death decisions that he does, so unless there is clear evidence of criminal intent or negligence I'm not willing to second-guess Secretary Rumsfeld at this point.Sandor offers a careful defense of Secretary Rumsfeld...balanced, cautious, generous and as usual, deferential. These sort of powerfully important men can't be 'second guessed' by simple citizens such as ourselves...thankfully his type of deadly decisions are out of our reach, as is our skepticism uncalled for. I get the feeling that skepticism towards such terribly powerful men is seen as ungrateful by Sandor. Well, if it's not ungrateful, it is whining. The evidence is here www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/ and although it isn't overwhelming, it is demanding of a full investigation as well as supportive of radical skepticism regarding the noble intentions you so readily preach on these threads. For all of your attempts at balanced, careful and fair critique of our imperfect leaders....it's clear you always land on the side of the powerful, and see its intentions as noble and good- no matter the extent of its flaws and mistakes.Quote:Why is it only America that is responsible for Saddam, when many European and Arab nations also aided him with money, weapons, and intelligence?Any who've aided should be held accountable to the extent their aid added to the destruction unleashed by Sadaam and his Regime. Americans should start this critique with their own Nation, where their own Tax dollars go, and their Political compliance and Military actions support. This isn't a 'paternalistic obligation', but simple moral common sense. Moral obligation starts first with behaviors I can influence- I have close to zero influence over the Moral choices of Russia's Foreign Policy. I have even less credibility if I start first with the behaviors of others, while being in denial of my own. Perhaps this is too subtle for the blogger you chose to quote from.Quote:But I challenge you to point to one - just one - communist or theocratic nation in the real world that does not hold its population under the boot of oppression or grinding poverty (or both). There is something inherently wrong with communism and theocracy: They don't work.Of course, the entire American history of Slavery and Patriarchy and Indigenous genocide and Jim and Jane Crowism, and vicious Industrialism, not to mention sitting atop a Nuclear arsenal large enough to eliminate the entire biosphere for thousands of generations to come, simply disappears from your radar here...actually, they were unfortunate flaws and mistakes and well, probably worth it in the long run. You never seem to see the real costs in your Empire, Sandor. Here's a reminder:www.musarium.com/withouts.../main.html Edited by: Dissident Heart at: 12/31/03 12:02 am
User avatar
Chris OConnor

1A - OWNER
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
Posts: 17002
Joined: Sun May 05, 2002 2:43 pm
21
Location: Florida
Has thanked: 3502 times
Been thanked: 1307 times
Gender:
Contact:
United States of America

Re: Hmmm

Unread post

Tell me this doesn't leave you with a pit in your stomach. Mass graves in IraqSaddam needs to die.Chris "When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward,for there you have been, and there you will always want to be."
sandor at the zoo

Re: Hmmm

Unread post

Ah, my Moriarty (in habit if not in temperament) is back for another round. You will have to forgive my delay in replying, Dissident, but the New Year celebrations have kept me offline for the past few days. Dissident says:Quote:Sandor offers a careful defense of Secretary Rumsfeld...balanced, cautious, generous and as usual, deferential. These sort of powerfully important men can't be 'second guessed' by simple citizens such as ourselves...thankfully his type of deadly decisions are out of our reach, as is our skepticism uncalled for. I get the feeling that skepticism towards such terribly powerful men is seen as ungrateful by Sandor. Well, if it's not ungrateful, it is whining. The evidence is here www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/%%WORD100%
Niall001
Stupendously Brilliant
Posts: 706
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2003 4:00 am
20

Sandor

Unread post

In his January 28, 2003 State of the Union address, President Bush stated: "We have also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas." Hmmm, Did Mr. Bush think that Saddam might bomb Tampa?My apoligies for my long delay. My home computer is dead and I'll have no access to the internet for another week or so. Alas, the many, many documents I'd collated on this issue have also passed on to a better place. I had hoped to post many of them. they suggest that Rumsfield et al knew exactly what Saddam was.But perhaps I'd better make this clear. I'm not judging Rumsfield, Regan or Saddam on an innocent until proven guilty basis. There isn't evidence enough to do that.When you asked me to place myself in Rummy's shoes, I can't really. Like you suggest, I don't know enough about the man or the situation to do so. However, the circumstancial evidence (along with the many biases endowned upon me by my personality and belief systems) leads me to believe that the guy isn't a snow white lamb. You, on the other hand, seem to assume innocence when guilt cannot be proven beyond doubt, at least for members of the american administration. I should also point out that I do hold the European countries responsible to a great degree, but so long as the soviets were around, europe was America's bitch. If the US had said that Saddam was a pink fluffly magical elephant, then Europe's leaders would have nodded in agreement.Anyway, since my Rumsfield files won't be making an appearance any time soon, I'm going to pretend that Rumsfield and co. were innocents who just didn't know what Saddam was up to. What does that say about the American Intelligence? They must have been totally incompetent or they just kept the information away from those who needed it.In relation to your comments on theocracies and communist dictatorships, I think that you may have missed my point or maybe I've just missed yours. I have never lived under either system. I live under a democracy. For the most part, I'm satisfied with its performance. But I know of many people who have lived under democracies who have not been so lucky. It is possible that another country could adopt the exact same system of government that my country uses but could commit terrible crimes against humanity. Democracy is not good. It is not evil. Under certain circumstances, it functions rather well. Under others, it can lead death, destruction, oppression and famine. Democracy works sometimes, other times, it doesn't. In judging a regieme, we don't judge the system, we judge the actions of those who control the regieme. Perhaps I can't name one theocracy or communist dictatorship that I think worked, but I could name many monarchies which were successful.You know, the US does use the same tactics as Bin Laden and Saddam. The differnece is only one of degree. And where do you draw the line?Who is worse, the man who killed 55 people or the man who killed 56?Anyway, I found your reply to Jeremy particularly interesting Sandor, because I was thinking about many of those issues recently. You know, I do consider myself a member of the human race, a citizen of the world before anything else. I've always been slightly disturbed when I hear people complaining about jobs going to other countries, in the developing world. I mean, those people are in danger of death if they don't get jobs, people here are in danger of not having a car if they don't have the job. Thats just an aside really.You know, I'm not a fan of the UN. I'd love it, if it were what it was supposed to be, buts its not. That said its impotence is the the result of unnatural castration. Let me give you an example. The former President of Ireland, Mary Robinson recently finished her term as UN high commisioner for Human rights. By any standards, she performed rather well. However, she was not offered another term because her reappointment was opposed by Russia and the United States. She had criticised the US for its treatment of the POW from Afghanistand and Russia for its actions in Chechnya.Could you explain why exactly you're out of patience with the UN and the axis of weasels? Why is America so special? Why should America do what it wants and not India?
Post Reply

Return to “Current Events & History”