posted
This is good news! A brutal dictator finally has been captured and will (presumably) be brought to justice. It is truly a great day.
However, I'm afraid this will not lead to decreased attacks on US forces. It was a blow to the guerillas, but it won't stop them.
(Man, didn't Saddam look like James Bond after he was released form the North Korean prison in "Die Another Day?" Of course, he's shaved now, still keeping his trademark mustache...)
posted
I just hope this takes a little bit of the wind out of the sails of Howard Dean, Hillary Clinton, and their Ilk.
-------------------- "Warfare is the greatest affair of state, the basis of life and death, the Tao to survivial or extinction. It must be thoroughly pondered and analyzed."
"...attaining one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the pinnacle of excellence. Subjugating the enemy's army without fighting is the true pinnacle of excellence."
-Sun Tzu, The Art of War, 6th century B.C.E.
Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Omega: Has something like this EVER happened before? The capture of a brutal dictator, I mean. Don't they have a tendancy to commit suicide?
Milosevic. He's on tribunal in The Hague. He's alarmingly good at defending himself in court, so it's taking a bit long.
quote:Get a load of the PRAVDA take on this... Could they be bigger fuckers? It reads like Al Jeezera.
posted
Well, that's to be expected as much as PRADA, I'm sad to say.
Funny thing is: Once we're rid of Bush (unlikley with this victory under his collective belt) and a democrat administration is elected, FOX will either have to change it's tune or become even more right wing.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
I think there is a tiny differebce between PRADA and PRAVDA. I just can't remember exactly what it is...
It looks like he will be tried under Iraqi law, which is probably the best solution, given the US's aversion to international law. Of course, there is the question of whether or not he'll get a fair trial. I don't think he should be executed; that'll just make him a martyr. Life imprisonment somewhere would probably be the best option.
-------------------- "I am an almost extinct breed, an old-fashioned gentleman, which means I can be a cast-iron son-of-a-bitch when it suits me." --Jubal Harshaw
Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
"I just hope this takes a little bit of the wind out of the sails of Howard Dean, Hillary Clinton, and their Ilk."
No, what would take REALLY the wind out of their sails would be 1) a formal denouncement of Rumsfeld's Old and New Europe rhetoric, 2) a new UN (which was deemed redundant half a year ago, remember?) resolution granting the invasion that much sought-after legitimacy, 3) piles of WMDs, 4) the Iraqis unanimously accepting the coalition forces as "liberators" instead of viewing them as "occupiers", 5) unrestricted military and economic support from allies overseas to plug the HALF A TRILLION dollar gap in the US budget, 6) bringing an end to all suicide bombings in Iraq as well as presenting a constitution that the Arabic Sunnis AND the Kurdish Sunnis AND the Arabic Shiites AND the Ba'ath nationalists AND the islamic fundamentalists AND the other religious minorities can ALL live with (nation building, as Bush is so fond of saying), 7) a 180 degree reversal of mr. President's shortsighted and irresponsible domestic policies, 8) eliminating the Taliban (who are on the rise again in now largely-forgotten Afghanistan) once and for all and FINALLY capturing Bin Laden, 9) allotting the UN a larger role in postwar Iraq, 10) defusing the Joseph Wilson scandal re: those enriched uranium deals, 11) severing all ties with Saudi-Arabia (only eighteen of the twenty 9/11 hijackers were Saudis, after all), 12) restoring the crumbled pillars of NATO after Bush broke with the multilateral orientation that typified previous adminstrations, and 13) a viable space program. All in under six months, of course.
Keep dreaming. B)
[ December 14, 2003, 12:58 PM: Message edited by: Cartman ]
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Pardon the interjection of cynicism, but when do we get to capture the guy who was actually behind the 9/11 attacks? Remember those, the source of all this upright American anger?
And, to bring another point back up again, but where are the WMD�s? These weapons for which the impending doom was too great too ignore?
Hopefully though, the Bush family vendetta is over and done with.
-------------------- Great is the guilt of an unnecessary war. ~ohn Adams
Once again the Bush Administration is worse than I had imagined, even though I thought I had already taken account of the fact that the Bush administration is invariably worse than I can imagine. ~Brad DeLong
You're just babbling incoherently. ~C. Montgomery Burns
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Oh my, where do I start? (Number 1 you say? You did give me a nice numbered list after all. Thanks for that. I appreciate it when people organize their arguments. No sarcasm meant there. A semester of reading disorganized cases from courts and you appreciate the little things like people numbering stuff.) This really isn�t the place to give the fullest account of all my objections to each of these statements, but I�ll try to give a concise answer to each and we can agree to disagree. I would also point out that I think there are two issues I see in your response: the war and the economy. The two are linked, but I was trying to point out that capturing Saddam might remove some of the criticism of current policy regarding the war. But in the spirit of debate, I�ll respond to each. That said, though, I�m not looking to start a flame war here. I just want to give the other side too. I�m not going to respond to anything arising out of this exchange from here on out unless it is patently false.
1. If I recall correctly, when he said that at NATO headquarters, the context he meant that in was the admission of new states, e.g. Poland, Romania, the Baltic states, versus the established states. But I understand quite well that we all know he thinks lowly of the Rhineland nations� policies. No argument there. Ultimately, this is a diplomatic argument over style. How much it�s hurt us is a counterfactual argument we can�t know with metaphysical certitude. But I think it�s given more significance than an underlying difference between the United States and the continental EU. See number 12 below.
2. I won�t get into an argument over public international law here. I will let the statement of the Dean of Princeton�s foreign affairs school speak for me. Regarding the invasion of Iraq, she called it �illegal but legitimate.� I think it�s important to see in international law the much greater importance of the second over the first. Again, see number 12 below.
3. Just give the interrogators time. It�s been less than 24 hours since we got him. On a related point, just because something is a weapon of mass destruction kills masses of people doesn�t mean it has to be big. A vial of the right stuff hidden in the desert with the help of a GPS would make it unfindable unless we nab the burryer. On a more ultimate point: WMD are not the only reason we went in. Even Christopher �Mother Theresa is a fraud� Hitchens endorsed the war. It�s the difference between motivation and justification. All that is sufficient for the policy to be acceptable is to have a single good justification. The motivation is irrelevant.
4. Again, give things a little time. Nabbing Saddam might get us that yet. I�m optimistic, but just remember that the people, like the polls that measure them, are fickle. Give it a few weeks and we can discuss this more.
5. Give the economy time to rev up. We�ve got near double digit growth last quarter. A few years of growth like in the 1990s, and we can get things solvent again. I�m not going to get into economic policy here. I�ll leave the debate to people like Robert Samuelson, Larry Kudlow, and Paul Krugman. But I think we�re going to see a lot more good happen over the next 6 months than the Left wants.
6. Suicide bombings are linked to supporters of Saddam (again, give things time to settle with this and let it sink in) and groups like Al Qaeda and Islamic Jihad. I think more is going on with the latter than we�re let on to. And with good reason. I say give them more time to separate the two out; then we can focus our attention on the latter. The constitution part will be made easier with the capture of Saddam, but remember we are losing good Iraqis over there every day to assassinations. Let�s see how much people come out of their shell with Saddam captured.
7. Hmmm. That�s a little too broad to be answerable. But this gets back to my point about my earlier post: not saying that this will take all the wind out of their sails, only that it will take a little out.
8. Bin Laden is a red herring now according to most intelligence agencies reports I�ve read about second hand. The real catch is Zawahiri (sp?). But now that we have this significant thorn out of our paw, I�m sure we can start going after Al Qaeda a little harder. Let me also say something else: I think you�re argument looks a lot like �unless we can go after all of them at once, don�t go after any of them.� Have to choose your battles. Round 2, US. Round 3 is coming up. You can�t fight everyone at once.
9. When has the UN ever, on its own, succeeded in building up a nation from scratch like Iraq? Never. Kofi Annan has said he�s not putting his people on the ground until things start getting safer. Things will now I think, and they can do a lot of good when things are settled down, but they are batting .000 when it comes to nation building. Leave it to the people with proven track records (German, Japan, Korea, the Philippines, etc)
10. Again, this gets to the argument over the sufficiency of single justifications. Just because one piece of evidence didn�t come in just right didn�t mean we didn�t have other reasons to go. All you need is one.
11. I�m not denying that the House of Saud hasn�t been very cooperative, and I would like to see them take a little more responsibility for spreading Islamofascism around the world, but I am going to leave it to the professionals whether we ought to be ripping down a country like we might do if we cut Saudi Arabia out like that.
12. This is topic WAY too big to address here. But I have an essay from Francis Fukuyama you ought to read about the underlying difference between the US and EU. This is not an argument over unilateralism but over the legitimacy upon which nations are founded. Before you start arguing over unilateralism again, I ask that you please read this essay: http://www.cis.org.au/Events/JBL/JBL02.htm
13. Methinks you might have an interest in this, being a Star Trek fan? I would like to see a space program more attuned to interstellar traffic, given that we have placed all our species�s eggs in this basket we call Earth, but something tells me we need more basic science before we can do that. I would rather see more funding for that than more shuttle flights.
-------------------- "Warfare is the greatest affair of state, the basis of life and death, the Tao to survivial or extinction. It must be thoroughly pondered and analyzed."
"...attaining one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the pinnacle of excellence. Subjugating the enemy's army without fighting is the true pinnacle of excellence."
-Sun Tzu, The Art of War, 6th century B.C.E.
Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged
Da_bang80
A few sectors short of an Empire
Member # 528
posted
I just heard on CNN. I almost feel sorry for the buggger. Almost.
I'm curious as to what will happen to him now. Will he be tried in an Iraqi court as the news program said? Or will he be shipped off to the States? I think that it is a good idea to have an Iraqi court try him. Although he may us this as an oppurtunity to get off easy. I wouldn't put it past him to have some kind of arrangement with the Iraqi court system.
-------------------- Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change. The courage to change the things I cannot accept. And the wisdom to hide the bodies of all the people I had to kill today because they pissed me off.
posted
a 180 degree reversal of mr. President's shortsighted and irresponsible domestic policies
I'm sorry, but what exactly are you referring to?
Oh, and the Saudis that hit the WTC? I don't know the entire list, but bin Laden at least was an exile from that country. You're suggesting we hold a country responsible for the actions of criminals because they just happened to be born there.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I don't think it's a good idea for Hussein to be tried in either an Iraqi court or a US court. After all, when you try a normal criminal, do you let the victim be the judge? Do you let the cops who arrested him be the jury?
The only problem is the fact that anything resembling an international court is anathema to the US government. It's funny how, when we get to go beat up other countries, we're all about getting involved in world affairs. But as soon as someone suggests that people (including ourselves) might be answerable to someone other than us, we don't want anything to do with it.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I hear Saddam's gonna hire Mark Garegos (maybe I misheard).
-------------------- When you're in the Sol system, come visit the Starfleet Museum
Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
David:
You're right, those are the major issues I have beefs with. I don't have time to reply to each point in detail, so I'll agree to agree to disagree with you on most of them, but I do want to thank you for responding with such civility. I wasn't expecting that, to be honest.
1) No, I suppose not. But it does illustrate how strained US-EU relations have become, and I don't think that's a road we want to go down further.
2) That's a dangerous stance to adopt. What is considered legitimate by one nation might not be by another, and I don't very much like the idea of nations being judge, jury, AND executioner. It sets precedents that are undesirable at best. What good are international laws if they can be arbitrarily broken without reprisals?
3) When motivation becomes irrelevant, so does justification. See 2).
4) I think the population of Iraq is too diverse for that to happen in a few weeks (if ever), wether Saddam is out of the picture or not.
8) No, but it reeks of a double standard to only go after a select few, play the human rights card along the way, and then ignore the rest.
10) That's not how it was spun by the administration, though, and it bugs me greatly.
12) Fantastic essay, even if I don't share Fukuyama's conclusion that:
quote:Nor is it possible to argue in principle that if a nation is threatened with terrorists armed with weapons of mass destruction it does not have a right to defend itself unilaterally. It is legitimate to argue over whether such a threat exists. But if it does, it would be irresponsible for any government to depend on international law for self-defence.
But this echoes my sentiments exactly:
quote:First, if the United States is going to shift to a preemptive policy towards international terrorism, there ought to be a thinking-through and enunciation of a broader strategy that among other things indicates the limits of this new doctrine. What kinds of threats, and what standards of evidence, will justify the use of this kind of power? Presumably, the US is not thinking of unilaterally attacking at least two of the three legs of the axis of evil; if this is the case, why not at least spell this out? The United States is in the process of scaring itself to death with regard to terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. A more realistic appraisal of future threats will raise the bar to preemption, while keeping it in the arsenal.
Second, the US needs to take some responsibility for global public bads like carbon emissions. The Kyoto Protocol is a very flawed document for any number of reasons, and the link between carbon emissions and observed warming has not been conclusively proven. On the other hand, it has not been disproven, either, and it would seem only prudent to hedge against the possibility that it is true. Apart from global warming, there are any number of good reasons why the United States ought to tax energy use much more heavily than it does: to pay for the negative externality of having to go to war every decade or so to keep open access to Middle Eastern oil; to promote development of alternative energy sources; and to create some policy space in dealing with Saudi Arabia, which does not seem to be a particular friend of the United States after September 11. Americans may not ever be convinced that they should make serious economic sacrifices for the sake of international agreements, but they may be brought around to an equivalent position if they see sufficient self-interest in doing so.
Finally, there should be a walking back of the steel and agricultural subsidy decisions taken earlier this year. No one in Washington ever pretended that there was a reason for making them in the first place other than pure political expediency, and there can be no US leadership on any important issue related to the global economy in their wake. Now that Trade Promotion Authority exists, the United States needs to use it as a mandate to act forcefully.
13) This was meant more in jest over Bush's not-so believable plans to announce a renewed push into space than anything else, but yes, I'm interested... so long as it's a (sorry) multilateral effort.
Omega:
"I'm sorry, but what exactly are you referring to?"
Nice bait, but I'm not biting. Better luck next time.
"You're suggesting we hold a country responsible for the actions of criminals because they just happened to be born there."
No, I'm suggesting you hold the country responsible for those actions because they were endorsed or at the very least encouraged by its government. Also note that "severing ties" does not equal "invading to change regime". You make a lousy devil's advocate, you know that?
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
No, I'm serious. You refer to short-sighted domestic policy, and I really want to know what you're talking about.
I'm suggesting you hold the country responsible for those actions because they were endorsed or at the very least encouraged by its government.
Is there evidence of this?
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I would like to see a space program more attuned to interstellar traffic, given that we have placed all our species�s eggs in this basket we call Earth, but something tells me we need more basic science before we can do that. I would rather see more funding for that than more shuttle flights.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
