I want the US to lose the war in Iraq

dlowan wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
nimh wrote:
But the end-all that, see, proof is in - Saddam did have "connections to terrorists"? Only if you believed it already ... strongly believed it already ...
I don't see why additional ties to terrorists are even important. Does anyone dispute that Saddam Hussein paid large sums of money to Palestinian suicide bombers?

Suicide bombing is an act of terrorism, and all parties to that crime are terrorists.. If you pay for a crime; you are a party to that crime. Hence Saddam Hussein, himself, is a terrorist.

How does it make any sense that if a man is part of a conspiracy to commit a single murder; there is no statute of limitations on that crime and we all agree he should be pursued until apprehended with haste and that every country in the world should cooperate in apprehension and extradition if he should flee yet we squabble over jurisdiction when a man who is essentially a mass-murderer of millions is at large?

What makes his being a party to the crime of Palestinian acts of murder less important than if he was a party to the crime of Al Qaeda's acts of murder?

Forgive me for asking, but is it because they are Jews?

Ah - so, therefore, the US, having paid all that money to the likes of Saddam, (when he was terrorising the Kurds, and his own people, and Iran) and Osama, (when he was terrorising the Russians in an insurgency) and the Nicaraguan Contras (when tghey were terrorising their own people) and Pinochet (when he was murdering and torturing tens of thousands of his own people - apparently including murdering women for their babies - who were adopted out to his childless army officers) is a terrorist nation - ergo, it must attack itself......

If you back off the silly stuff and ask me a serious question on this line, I would probably answer yes. If it can be established that any member of our government intentionally financed a terrorist act, he should be tried as a party to that crime. Yes, I know that's a lot of people. Our CIA has had some incredibly guilty people and I would very much like to see them brought to justice. Blanket indictments against entire administrations and bodies of lawmakers I don't accept as reasonable. I do believe the "Cold War" was read hot and would lend additional latitude for National Defense, but some line crossing is unacceptable period... and we no doubt have plenty of people guilty of crossing those lines.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

OCCOM BILL wrote:
Does anyone dispute that Saddam Hussein paid large sums of money to Palestinian suicide bombers?

I do, as this did not occur a single time.

Please don't make me play 20 questions Craven. What's your angle?

0 Replies

Quote:

Blanket indictments against entire administrations and bodies of lawmakers I don't accept as reasonable.

Hmm, North Korea, Iran, Syria, France, The UN.

Normally you're quite consistent O'Bill.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Does anyone dispute that Saddam Hussein paid large sums of money to Palestinian suicide bombers?

I do, as this did not occur a single time.
Please don't make me play 20 questions Craven. What's your angle?

Saddam did not once pay "large sums of money to Palestinian suicide bombers". Nor small sums of money.

He paid their relatives, who often had nothing to do with the terrorist attack (most of the relatives find out about it with everyone else) but whose houses would be bulldozed in Israeli retaliation.

Said relatives often lost breadwinners and their homes and Saddam tried to curry Arab favor by sending them, not the suicide bomber, money.

Not to defend his publicity stunts but your claim is false, and the slight prevarication segued into "conspiracy" in the crime.

0 Replies

DrewDad wrote:

Actually, this is incorrect.

The people who stood around chanting, urging on the rapist were guilty of a crime. (I forget exactly what the terminology was.)

The man who stood and watched but did not chant was not guilty of a crime. They later talked him into testifying.

Is that a fact? Inciting?
Anyway, he was guilty too, in my book. No call to the authorities no shouts of protest even, let alone the appropriate response which was busting heads with a cue stick. Of course, we all have our own morals and that's just my opinion of what's appropriate.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Not to defend his publicity stunts but your claim is false, and the slight prevarication segued into "conspiracy" in the crime.

Your vocabulary has stumped me here and I'm not satisfied with the dictionary definition for segued. Could you rephrase this for me please? If I'm reading you correctly, you're suggesting that a party to the crime after the fact is not culpable? If so, I think you are wrong.

0 Replies

Adrian wrote:

Quote:
Blanket indictments against entire administrations and bodies of lawmakers I don't accept as reasonable.

Hmm, North Korea, Iran, Syria, France, The UN.

Normally you're quite consistent O'Bill.

I don't follow you Adrian? While I do wish for a regime change in NK for instance, I do not blame the entire government for Kim's policies. What the rest of the world considered acceptable enough behavior, I wouldn't condemn them for. Like the A-hole in Libya, I think voluntary compliance with acceptable standards should be rewarded with amnesty for some sins of the past in order to make way for a peaceful future. I think it's high time we set the bar for "acceptable behavior" somewhere above starving people to death by the millions.

France? The UN?

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

If I'm reading you correctly, you're suggesting that a party to the crime after the fact is not culpable? If so, I think you are wrong.

I'm saying that your claim that Saddam paid money to Palestinian suicide bombers is not true.

He paid money to their relatives and unless you believe in guilt by familial association after-the-fact or not makes no difference.

A simple test would be to answer "what crime?"

That of being related to a criminal?

0 Replies

Bill.

Never mind, there wasn't much of anything there to follow.

If I find a quote of yours that demonstrates my point I'll come back.

Sorry for the digression.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

msolga wrote:
Well, I don't know what to say, then .... that's bewildering.

Lol - you are a lady!!!!! I have said bad things....

Who are you calling a "lady", wabbit!? Evil or Very Mad

I was just gobsmacked, that's all .....

(Pardon the digression, folks. I just couldn't let that pass!)

0 Replies

By offering the reward for murder before the fact, then paying the sums out after the fact... wouldn't he have to be considered an accessory to the fact? Confused

I don't think I can prove this... but I'm thinking a good criminal prosecutor could.

I wonder if any of those funds could be traced back into the terrorist organization that financed the attacks, for instance.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

dlowan wrote:
OCCOM BILL wrote:
nimh wrote:
But the end-all that, see, proof is in - Saddam did have "connections to terrorists"? Only if you believed it already ... strongly believed it already ...
I don't see why additional ties to terrorists are even important. Does anyone dispute that Saddam Hussein paid large sums of money to Palestinian suicide bombers?

Suicide bombing is an act of terrorism, and all parties to that crime are terrorists.. If you pay for a crime; you are a party to that crime. Hence Saddam Hussein, himself, is a terrorist.

How does it make any sense that if a man is part of a conspiracy to commit a single murder; there is no statute of limitations on that crime and we all agree he should be pursued until apprehended with haste and that every country in the world should cooperate in apprehension and extradition if he should flee yet we squabble over jurisdiction when a man who is essentially a mass-murderer of millions is at large?

What makes his being a party to the crime of Palestinian acts of murder less important than if he was a party to the crime of Al Qaeda's acts of murder?

Forgive me for asking, but is it because they are Jews?

Ah - so, therefore, the US, having paid all that money to the likes of Saddam, (when he was terrorising the Kurds, and his own people, and Iran) and Osama, (when he was terrorising the Russians in an insurgency) and the Nicaraguan Contras (when tghey were terrorising their own people) and Pinochet (when he was murdering and torturing tens of thousands of his own people - apparently including murdering women for their babies - who were adopted out to his childless army officers) is a terrorist nation - ergo, it must attack itself......

If you back off the silly stuff and ask me a serious question on this line, I would probably answer yes. If it can be established that any member of our government intentionally financed a terrorist act, he should be tried as a party to that crime. Yes, I know that's a lot of people. Our CIA has had some incredibly guilty people and I would very much like to see them brought to justice. Blanket indictments against entire administrations and bodies of lawmakers I don't accept as reasonable. I do believe the "Cold War" was read hot and would lend additional latitude for National Defense, but some line crossing is unacceptable period... and we no doubt have plenty of people guilty of crossing those lines.

What more proof than the actual CIA documents (Iran and the overthrow of the duly elected government - Chile and the overthrow of the duly elected Allende Government and the funding of the Nicaraguan contras and on and on and on) do you want Bill?

I am not being silly - and my questions are more serious than you appear to be able to imagine. Believe me, I am utterly serious in my absolute appalledness about the things you suggest - and I am simply following your own logic and showing you where it leads.

If you do not think that the abundant available proof of US funding of terror is enough - well, so be it - live in your fantasy land where the US does no ill.

Yes - my words are very edged because I am, frankly, frustrated and stunned that a person with your good heart and intelligence can continue to spout the preposterous stuff that you do about the world and the US role in it.

Edit: To be fair, you DO acknowledge some ill .

"Blanket indictments against entire administrations and bodies of lawmakers I don't accept as reasonable"

Oh - but invasion of an entire country is acceptable?

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

By offering the reward for murder before the fact, then paying the sums out after the fact... wouldn't he have to be considered an accessory to the fact? I don't think I can prove this... but I'm thinking a good criminal prosecutor could.

Good prosecutors argue things well, facts prove.

In this case I think it would be a stretch.

He was sending money to families who had suffered a death in the mid-east conflict. In some cases even those who were wounded.

Some of the families were relatives of suicide bombers, some were famies who had lost relatives from Israeli attacks.

I think it's not accurate to describe them as rewards for murder (e.g. was he also "rewarding" the Israeli military for killing Palestinians?) though the nature of rewards is such that a broad range of things would qualify.

I think grandstanding for Arab support is more accurate than the accomplice angle and though he certainly did his share of moral support for "martyrs" I think construing it as material support on the basis of the checks we are discussing (other attempts to link Saddam to material support to Palestinian terrorists I do not comment on as I have not had the chance to audit the allegations and they have mainly been in blogs and such) is inaccurate.

During the run up to the war in Iraq Israel did its part to support the US position by characterizing it that way and some of the families argued otherwise.

From BBC

Israel condemned the Iraqi handouts as funding for terrorism. "It shows that Saddam is involved in every activity that is terrorism and murderous and leads to instability in the Middle East," said Amira Oron, a spokeswoman for the Foreign Ministry. However, families at this week's ceremony said the money would be used to rebuild homes destroyed by Israel and bring up orphaned children. "Saddam supports the families of the martyrs, not terrorism," said Ahmed Sabah, 69, whose son was killed by an Israeli missile strike in December.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

What more proof than the actual CIA documents (Iran and the overthrow of the duly elected government - Chile and the overthrow of the duly elected Allende Government and the funding of the Nicaraguan contras and on and on and on) do you want Bill?

I am not being silly - and my questions are more serious than you appear to be able to imagine. Believe me, I am utterly serious in my absolute appalledness about the things you suggest - and I am simply following your own logic and showing you where it leads.

If you do not think that the abundant available proof of US funding of terror is enough - well, so be it - live in your fantasy land where the US does no ill.

Yes - my words are very edged because I am, frankly, frustrated and stunned that a person with your good heart and intelligence can continue to spout the preposterous stuff that you do about the world and the US role in it.

Edit: To be fair, you DO acknowledge some ill -

"Blanket indictments against entire administrations and bodies of lawmakers I don't accept as reasonable"

Oh - but invasion of an entire country is acceptable?

Deb, I fear you are someone who has too hard of time seeing the difference between collateral damage and murder. I think you might be so anti-war that you can't see a deadly, forced regime change as possibly being just. Your comparison of removing a Saddam to terrorist activity is simply unacceptable to me, and we'll get nowhere if we try to debate it. Our politics are so completely opposite the only result will be you liking me less for the effort. And it's not like we don't already know where each other stands.

As for our past actions as a nation: I have neither the inside knowledge nor the expertise to truly judge all of the moves and motives of what my government did during the cold war. I won't try. I do know we did a lot of nasty sh!t and I repeat: to the extent individuals in the United States are guilty of collusion with terrorist acts I'd like to see them prosecuted. That doesn't mean that for every dirty deal we had a hand in we should arrest a former President (would we have any left?). I can understand the fears that led to our attack on the democracy in Chile, though why we'd tolerate the Hitler wannabe bastard we helped install I have no idea. If you are saying our assistance in installing him means we're guilty of all his crimes I'd say you're being unreasonable. Keep in mind, you support the Agreed Framework in NK so cooperation with a bastard alone can't be sufficient grounds for guilt. I don't know why we thought the best solution was to fund baby sonofa's former goons in Nicaragua or why we thought a handful of Marxist idiots in Grenada required such a sound a$$-whooping or why we gave the murderous Baby Doc a ride to (where else :razz:) France but hey, I was a kid through most of our worst and know only what I've read about it since, which, frankly, isn't a hell of a lot. I'm not denying any wrongdoing in those places or that there's many others, okay? What I'm saying is I won't condemn people for cold war decisions, that may or may not have had an important flip side of the coin. I don't know about you, but I'm glad we won the cold war and since I feel woefully ill-equipped to decipher which decisions were intentionally heinous and which were tragic mistakes, or what combination of terrible things prevented how much strengthening of the Soviets and damn it didn't I already say I didn't want to do this?

Long story short: The Cold War is over. We all committed crimes, but I think we're better now. Those who aren't better, need to either get that way or be dealt with even if that means war. What was acceptable because of the nightmare threat that was the Soviet Union, is no more. Mind you, if Iraq turns into Chile, I'll eat my every word if it takes a year. Frankly, I think the comparison is absurd because it's the complete opposite. Dictator->Democracy Vica-Versa. Oh hell I give upwhy didn't I stop at it won't help? :wink: Do you realize Nicaragua and Chile happened 24 and 33 years ago respectively? Shocked

How could that be?

0 Replies

Craven I don't have any information to refute your claims. I don't buy the BBC interview as proof of anything, but neither can I say conclusively that they're wrong. In a culture where suicide bombers actually plan their attacks and are celebrated for there acts (suggesting they are not completely nuts), I do believe the prospect of compensation for their families is can be a considered motive. I can't prove it. Your objection is a very good one and I'm going to have to let it go for now.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

Quote:
Here's something else that McG wrote in that thread: "I am sure the government has people much more educated in international law than us working on this. If it were indeed illegal, it would have come out long before now."

Well, at least there's something to be said for consistency.

Thanks McG, for that brilliant cartoon about the US mind state.

Yes, just because most all of the rest of the world / UN / Security Council Member States and all their international law experts disagree with your American experts should be no reason for the Americans to worry. It's obviously just the rest of the world that's stupid. <nods> You just keep on trusting that little girl there.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Problems of national strategy involve focus in what one's enemy is capable of doing and what he might reasonably do to improve his security or threaten his enemies; not what it can be proved in a court of law that he is already doing.

Yet you proposed the article as a final disproval to all of us who still didn't believe Saddam had "connections to terrorists".

georgeob1 wrote:

The obvious answer is that (1) the sanctions themselves would not likely have continued in the absence of a credible threat of U.S, invasion (and it is too costly to stay ready for that without acting);

You can't seriously propose the costs issue as a reason why maintenance of sanctions under military threat would have been unfeasible? The war America went into instead, and the ensuing occupation of Iraq and continuing military operations against insurgents across the country, are costing a multiple of what maintaining that threat would have cost. For the money you're spending now you could have kept up that threat for another two decades! You could probably have kept it up on that budget long past Saddam's death ...

georgeob1 wrote:

(3) A seriously threatened authoritarian dictator who has already started two wars with his neighbors can be counted on to do whatever it takes to insure his survival

Which was a good reason to keep him in check like we were doing ... There's a LOT of authoritarian dictators out there who are in some way or other seriously threatened and can be counted on to do whatever it takes to insure their survival. We already acknowledged that Saddam was a special case by caging him in and forcing him down, unlike other dictators who get to keep full freedom of action (through being a US ally, for example).

georgeob1 wrote:

- given his previous weapons capability and the gathering Islamist terrorist problem it was just a matter of time and opportunity.

There's a lot of countries with the "opportunity" to do evil - even with the motive and opportunity to do evil. As long as no actual concrete steps of any kind are shown that one was actually going to do evil, that is no lawful reason for initiating war against it.

It introduces a totally random quality to war justifications - whomever we decide to ascribe motive and opportunity, regardless of whether we dispose of any credible evidence or not, we can attack, invade and occupy. As long as the US appears to intend to make its hegemony one of such arbitrary dispensal of vigilante justice, it's the US rather than Saddam's Iraq that I would have considered the greater threat to world security.

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

What makes his being a party to the crime of Palestinian acts of murder less important than if he was a party to the crime of Al Qaeda's acts of murder?

Well, let's see.

Scenario 1: Pakistan is actively aiding terrorists that are blowing up major buildings in Amsterdam.

Reason for a Dutch military strike at them?

I'd say, yes.

Scenario 2: Pakistan is giving money to terrorists who are killing people in Tanzania.

Reason for a Dutch military strike at them?

I'd say, no.

Do you fail to see a logic in my response?

0 Replies

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Adrian wrote:
Quote:
Blanket indictments against entire administrations and bodies of lawmakers I don't accept as reasonable.

Hmm, North Korea, Iran, Syria, France, The UN.

Normally you're quite consistent O'Bill.

I don't follow you Adrian? While I do wish for a regime change in NK for instance, I do not blame the entire government for Kim's policies.

I think the point here is that:

- when you find that the Iraq regime has supported some terrorist somewhere in the world, you use that as a justification for the attack of the country.

- when you find that the US regime supported some terrorist somewhere in the world, you say, well, that was just a question of this one or two individuals, they should be brought to court individually ...

Inconsistent.

I am NOT equating Nixon or Reagan with Saddam (before I get all that over me) - but purely on this question - why does Saddam funding a bunch of Palestinian terrorists warrant the attack of the country and the overthrow of the regime, but does Eisenhower (Iran) or Ford (Chile) or Reagan (Nicaragua, El Salvador) funding a bunch of terrorists (torturing, murderous putschists, etc) warrant ... individual condemnation, at best?

And I'm having to add - to my shock - "at best", here - for where you show no hesitation or second thought on condemning any terrorist or any regime supporting terrorists wherever else in the world, refusing to consider any contextual or other apologetic prevarications, I find you hemming and hawing about well-documented support of murderous goons, dictatorial torturers and guerrilla terrorists when it's suggested that America has a hand in it. "Can't judge about that, don't have all the relevant information, it was a difficult time, who can say what was wrong or right, it was just collateral damage ...".

That it's in the past is no justification for such wishy-washiness here; you have no more information at your disposal about Saddam's involvement with terrorists than can easily be found back on the web regarding American involvement with Pinochet (after his coup too, yes - it's not like the US went all-shocked at "oh look what monster we created" - they actively kept supporting him and thwarting actions, even publicity, against him.) In fact, if anything it being in the past makes it easier to judge, considering the more complete wealth of information we have now.

0 Replies

Now that I'm colonizing this thread anyway ...

Sorry JW, hadnt seen this reply of yours a while back:

JustWonders wrote:

nimh wrote:
JustWonders wrote:
And then there's this Iranian student. He's a "real" vigilante

http://www.nysun.com/article/7065

Gathering signatures for a petition makes one a vigilante!?

I dont see any analogy here ... I'm guessing there isn't any, just one of those rhetorical associative links ...

Nimh....one of your earlier comments in this thread is what made me think of the Iranian student:

Quote:
Others, like say Iran or North Korea, by trying to get their hands on some effective nukes of their own to make sure the US wont be trying to do no Iraq on them.

I've been following the underground movement by the Iranian students as closely as I can, given there's limited info. Hopefully, they'll prevail and there won't be a need for Iran to tape a bullseye on their backs by "getting their hands on some effective nukes of their own".

Way I see it getting some effective nukes of one's own is the surest way of getting that bullseye off your back. Bush isnt exactly doing an Iraq on North-Korea, is he?

But itd be a pity, cause having nukes makes a regime also much harder to tackle by the domestic opposition. And like you, I desperately want the Iranian opposition to succeed in getting the conservatives out of power.

JustWonders wrote:

For some time now, I've just been amazed that so many are cheering on the Ukranians in their struggle for democracy, yet don't seem to see the parallels for the people of Iraq and Iran.

No parallel for Iraq that I see of. Iran's democratic movement has had plenty of attention by me (here, too - in this thread of mine about the subject, for example, or over here where I translated an article about Ebadi, or over here and onward in that thread of Lash's). So your reproach of double standards totally flies by me, at least.

In fact I've expressed some concern here about how some conservatives appeared to be mostly unaware of the ups and downs of the democratic reform movement in Iran these past years (or are not accostumed to take it into account). Talking about Iran, as they were, as the next appropriate target for the Saddam treatment, as if Iran was anything like the totalitarian monolith Saddam's regime presented (see this thread for example). I was all: lookit - there's a democratic protest movement going on already - it actually controlled parliament (back then, still, anyway) - there's a tug of war going on inside Iran's institutions between liberal and conservative Muslim players, judges, politicians, the president versus the ayatollah - why are you talking about this country like its some uniform totalitarian monolith that can only be assailed by ways of invasion from outside? Instead I've compared the country often to Gorbachev's Soviet-Union - insisting that we need a Yeltsin there to finish what Khatami, like Gorbachev, couldn't. Instead, the reactionaries have won - for now - but there'll be a next round.

JustWonders wrote:

I think this Iranian guy is probably a bit like a vigilante. He obviously wants justice (and more) for his fellow-Iranians.

Err - and? A vigilante is just anyone "who wants justice" now? Wow. That makes me one, too, I guess. You know, when I'm collecting signatures against the parking garage they're planning to build in the park and all that.

The discussion about American vigilanteness was about how America, on its own accord, decided to bypass the existing legal approaches (by the UN SC Members) to an offender's (Iraq's) transgression of the law (UN resolutions), using its own arms - right? Claiming to uphold that law while ignoring and actually contradicting the law's (resolutions') upholders, it literally took the weapons in its own hands and started acting cop.

I still dont see the analogy with an Iranian student collecting petitions. How is "collecting petitions" like "acting as a vigilante"?

People just throw these random things out in a discussion, that sound good in how they, you know, associatively link their side with the Good of this world - and hope it'll stick ... leaving logic for the reality-based community, I spose <mutters> ...

0 Replies

I want the US to lose the war in Iraq

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know