posted
Again, my concerns rise about Rob's mental state. Who's this "they," Roberto? Classic paranoia. Then there's the erratic behavious of late. Posts once, usually some crazy shit that gets laughed right off the Forums, then a sulky silence for about a fortnight or so. Two posts in one day is encouraging, almost chatty - did they up your meds? 8)
Now, I don't think they've been hiding Saddam until it was convenient to 'find' him. It is very convenient of them to find him now - but then it'd have been convenient any time over the last nine months or so.
As for what Saddam may say, well I suspect he'll say anything. Or nothing at all. In his position, knowing he's likely to get a death sentence, I don't see him giving up any WMDs that might exist unless it was in return for lenience; life in prison isn't something he'd get from an Iraqi court, so he'd then have to be tried elsewhere.
So my question is: what is more preferable, Saddam copping a pleas and staying alive, WMDs found, Bush & Blair vindicated? Or should Saddam die even if he takes his secrets to the grave? Nine months and nothing found, with that kind of success rate the chances of anything turning up before the election are slim (note I'm not saying they won't, just that it's not definite).
As for all this stuff that happened way back then being less important than what's happening now, I'll be sure to remind us all about that the next time anyone whines about anything Clinton got away with.
Next, the election. I really don't think Rob or Omeychops need to lie twitching in their beds over this one. You got that whole "This is a crisis, we need a leader, you don't change horses in midrace" crap that everyone seems to be spouting. The only response I have is "Tell that to Gray Davis!" Most of the potential Democrat leaders make Gore look good. Few of them have any skeletons in their cupboard that are any worse than drunk-driving convictions or shakey National Guard attendance records, like that'll matter. But none of them are capable of winning, really, are they?
posted
Rob also mentioned Saddam would "instead talk about crap 20 years old." He is referring to the US support of Iraq. He is implying that this is old, so it does not matter.
But...didn't Saddam take power 24 years ago? Purge the Iraqi government 20 years ago? Invade Iran 20 years ago? Poison the Kurds 15 years ago? Invade Kuwait 12 years ago?
Seems like everything that we want to charge Saddam with is old stuff, that, by your reasoning is "crap."
posted
Theres no statute of limitations on mass murder.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
The problem is that administrations aided Iraq because of their pissing contest with Iran which was at the time our #2 enemy behind the USSR. That's the problem with the philosophy of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend". We aided what was thought to be the lesser of two evils at the time rather than letting them destroy each other.
Our next real problems are going to be what happens when Pakistan and India decide to make each others countries glow in the dark AND when will North Korea decide to "liberate" South Korea
-------------------- I am the Anti-Abaddon. I build models at a scale of 2500/1
Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
Why should those be "our" problems? OK, I can understand wanting to defend one sovereign country from invasion by another, even if they haven't got any oil - but I really doubt that North Korea would seriously try to invade the South. The whole country is fucked, basically - famine-ridden and effectively run for the amusement of a semi-retarded film buff. The poeple in charge are living high on the hog and have got the whole country wrapped round their finger.
And if India and Pakistan want to nuke each other? They're gonna. Nothing anyone tries to do will stop that. Sad but true. And all because: one sick old man who knew he'd barely live to see Independence insisted his people needed their own nation (for which read, he knew he'd never have any power in a united India); both that old man and the man who'd be running India came from Kashmir; and the Brit who drew the boundaries gave it to India because the Nabob/Maharajah was a Hindu (never mind that the population were majority Muslims). I've been to Kashmir - doubt there's anyone else here can say that - and it's beautiful. Is that enough to incinerate yourselves and your neighbours over? They seem to think so.
Saltah'na
Chinese Canadian, or 75% Commie Bastard.
Member # 33
posted
No one has answered my question yet: Why isn't Saddam being treated like a POW?
-------------------- "And slowly, you come to realize, it's all as it should be, you can only do so much. If you're game enough, you could place your trust in me. For the love of life, there's a tradeoff, we could lose it all but we'll go down fighting...." - David Sylvian FreeSpace 2, the greatest space sim of all time, now remastered!
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Does he qualify as an enemy combatant? Or is that important?
-------------------- "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
Saltah'na
Chinese Canadian, or 75% Commie Bastard.
Member # 33
posted
Or are we having a double standard here?
Leader or not, he was involved in a war, which is not defined as over as of yet. He led his troops into battle like any other general. He had to have been involved in some sort of military planning. Besides, I hear that Milosevic has all the rights of a POW (not sure, this was discussed in a talk show), why not Saddam?
I can understand the teams of prisoners held at Guantanamo without trial as non-combatants or whatever, but the US declared war here against a sovereign nation, remember?
Or are we having a double standard here? I guess having gazillions of oil gives you certain privileges.
-------------------- "And slowly, you come to realize, it's all as it should be, you can only do so much. If you're game enough, you could place your trust in me. For the love of life, there's a tradeoff, we could lose it all but we'll go down fighting...." - David Sylvian FreeSpace 2, the greatest space sim of all time, now remastered!
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Like I've mentioned before, the US didn't declare war, so they probably think they can get away with anything.
And regarding the earlier link to "WorldNetDaily": I have a difficult time taking seriously a "news" source that has a banner ad selling books by such wonderful people as Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Unfortunately, radiation doesn't stop at boundary lines drawn on maps. Then there's the whole Hindu vs. Muslim aspect. It wouldn't take long before the whole of southeast asia would give off an everlasting glow. Then where would we get our cheap CD's from?
-------------------- I am the Anti-Abaddon. I build models at a scale of 2500/1
Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
posted
Not from Japan (our freinds if you'll recall). I'm sure the cance rate in Australlia would skyrocket as well.
The US has always tried to avert the use of nuclear weapons by all countries (not too hypocritical: we let the genie out of te bottle after all- it's partly our responsibility).
As to Saddam being treated as a POW: Uh....yeah, right. He's NOT being tortured. He's NOT being beaten. He's NOT going to be executed (at east not without a trial). He's NOT going withot food, water or a restroom for days at a time. Can he say he treated our POW's the same way?
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
quote: Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Wash., told a Seattle radio station Monday the U.S. military could have found Saddam "a long time ago if they wanted." Asked if he thought the weekend capture was timed to help Bush, McDermott chuckled and said: "Yeah. Oh, yeah."
The Democratic congressman went on to say, "There's too much by happenstance for it to be just a coincidental thing."
It's true, of course.
You now, I bet that all those servicemen that have been shot at and had to risk their lives going house to house looking for Saddam would love to kick the shit out of Jim McDermott for saying anything so stupid. He'll probably blame Bush for 9/11 next.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Why what the US did in Iraq 20 years ago doesn't matter anymore:
The era of unconditional US support of dictatorships is over.
Why does this seem to upset so many people on the left? They should be pleased that a longstanding and BAD cold war policy has finally been reversed.
"Containment" has finally been seen for the poor strategy that it is - no matter who you're containing, it means you have to foster relations with the dictators around him. In the USSR's case, this meant places in which the USSR was trying to expand to, in Africa, SouthEast Asia, Central and South America. In Iraq's case, it meant Saudi Arabia and the other Mideast Dictatorships.
Europe is different, because it's nations are (more or less) Democracies. The worst we had to ally with to contain the USSR in Europe was France. (Just kidding. Turkey.) We usually didn't have to worry about a UK Prime Minister suddenly deciding to nerve-gas the Northern Irish.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
