Saddam captured

[Radar]

Nothing in this government is 'easily obtainable'.

I think we can all agree that destruction is easier than construction.

What I propose is merely removing the parts of government that are unconstitutional. And you're correct that it won't be easy without support. People will fight to keep their unconstitutional social programs, handouts, etc. until they realize when we get rid of these things, they won't have to pay a penny of income taxes. They'll be able to keep what they earn, have excellent healthcare at an affordable price, send thier children to superior schools that teach what they want their children to learn, prepare a better retirement, give more money to those in need, the freedom to support programs they want and not those they don't, etc.

I don't want to add something, I just want to get rid of what's not supposed to be there.

There are a lot of things that can be done by a Libertarian president that don't require the approval of Congress that would immediately improve America by defending our rights, and eliminating fat.

[Kitsune]

Originally posted by Radar
The US should remain neutral in all conflicts; even those of our allies. In fact when you're neutral, all countries are your allies. Name an enemy of Switzerland. When countries know they will be on their own if they start a war, they'll be less likely to start one.

An interesting idea, and I'll read the essay in a moment, but the thought made me think of Japan. Japan is technically a neutral country per their constitution -- they are only permitted to use their military to defend themselves. Yet, North Korea has been making some incredibly agressive statements and military exercises toward that neutral island nation.

...and I couldn't bear to think what would happen if Japan were attacked and we threw our arms up with the reply, "Your problem, you deal with it. Yes, we know they are launching nukes at you, but its your war."

[quzah]

Originally posted by Kitsune
Do we sit back and let a long-time ally perish at the hands of an opressor if they are attacked? If we, The United States, were attacked, would we not expect assistance for our allies?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but not too long ago we liked Iraq... then we tricked them into invading another country so we could go to war with them.

So in short, if you're thinking of starting a country, have nothing to do with America at all. Don't have any oil either.

Quzah.

[Radar]

...and I couldn't bear to think what would happen if Japan were attacked and we threw our arms up with the reply, "Your problem, you deal with it. Yes, we know they are launching nukes at you, but its your war."

Once again, this is an example of America's interventionism crippling another country. At the end of WWII, America ensured that Japan would not build a military to defend themselves. Now we're stuck with the job. I say we tell Japan to start building their own army, navy, airforce, etc. and we'll start pulling out. Being intimately familiar with Japanese culture and it's people, I'm sure they'd have a military in no time that could easily defend themselves including nukes. In fact Japan would probably build cheaper, more reliable, and smaller nukes that packed more of a bang.

America's military should not be stationed anywhere on earth but America during times of peace. This would ensure that we'd have a lot more times of peace.

[tw]

Originally posted by Beestie
Iran, my friend, is NOT an Arab nation.

Accurately stated. The post should have said Muslim or regional nation; not Arab nation.

Other nations with no legal claim against Saddam were Turkey and Israel. Saddam coveted his neighbors including Iran and Kuwait. Had he been successful, then it would probably only been time before he devoured Saudia Arabia, Jordan, and Syria to form a pan-Arab nation. This was his grandious objective which made him a threat to his neighbors. He started first by attacking what he thought would be an easy takeover -Iran. Easy because even we would provide him with satellite intelligence and chemicals for chemical warfare to help him succeed. Starting with Iran and afterwards, everything started going downhill. However Saddam seems to be the last to realize where he was going in his objectives.

Two nations that Saddam would never attack were Turkey and Israel. Turkey is NATO. And NATO is the US. Israel is obviously protected by the US. Saddam would do everything possible to avoid conflict with the US. Even Saddam knew where to attack and what to leave alone. He chose to attack nations that the US said would be permitted. He failed in Iran. He misinterpreted what he was told about Kuwait. But every Muslim and regional nation always kept one eye on Saddam. They did not trust him - but tolerated him because he was no direct threat - unless they lost US support. Saddam always tried to avoid conflict with the US. But his ego got in the way of logical analysis - and he therefore made a big mistake in Kuwait. Only then did we get concerned that we had all but encouraged him to build chemical and biological weapons. Before he invaded Kuwait, Saddam was considered a US friend - so much so that we even shared intelligence satellite information with him.

[tw]

Originally posted by Kitsune
An interesting idea, and I'll read the essay in a moment, but the thought made me think of Japan. Japan is technically a neutral country per their constitution -- they are only permitted to use their military to defend themselves. Yet, North Korea has been making some incredibly agressive statements and military exercises toward that neutral island nation.

The threat by N Korea is based in something far deeper. Those N Korean generals were raised as children to believe virtually the entire world was a threat to N Korea. N Korea is not threatening Japan. They are simply the bully who rattles chains and billy clubs because, psychologically inside, they fear everyone else. They also discovered the weapons generate by such tactics became their greatest source of exports and income. Just another reasons to entertain that paranoia. N Korea is a threat only because so much of the N Korean leadership is paranoid. So paranoid as to fear international aid from NGOs even as their people eat grass to survice and starve to death.

That was why Carter's negotiations to break N Korea was so important. His diplomacy was the first step to breaking that paranoia. George Jr simply reinforced the paranoia by empowering the N Korea paranoids at the expense of those who sought reform - and the elimination of that paranoia. Fear is the driving factor in N Korean international relations.

[Beestie]

tw wrote:

That was why Carter's negotiations to break N Korea was so important.

You mean the negotiations where Carter and Clinton gave NK around a billion of OUR dollars for a promise not to develop nuclear weapons which NK proceeded to spend the billion on?

Yeah, a definite high water mark in kiss-ass diplomacy.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally posted by Kitsune


How did Iraq pose a threat, Beestie? They had an army? They had tanks? Everyone's got those.

The UN inspection teams hadn't found anything in violation of UN terms by the time we invaded and they wanted more time to continue their search and run tests. At one time Iraq did pose a threat to surrounding areas, but in the past two years there was no evidence (except for false or misleading) to support that Iraq had WMD.

Actually, the fact that the weapons inspectors from the UN didn't find what they were looking for was more telling. Iraq admitted to the UN they had biological and chemical weapons, and said, "We have this much, and we've destroyed this much." then gave us numbers.

So the UN said, "OK, show us." Well, they couldn't. Then, they got caught fudging the numbers, so they said, "Well, we really made THIS much, and destroyed THIS much." They got caught again. They changed the numbers. Again.

Had the inspectors found what they were looking for, had Saddam Hussein complied with the UN requirements, much of this whole mess could have been avoided. But Saddam is a compulsive liar, so they lied to the UN. The big hoohah was over the WMD that Saddam already admitted to having, but was no where to be found.

[Radar]

You're ignoring the fact that Iraq was under no obligation to tell the UN or anyone else how many weapons or what kind of weapons they have. Iraq is a sovereign nation and doesn't require permission from anyone to have any weapons they want including nukes. Were I the leader of Iraq, I'd tell America, and the UN to kiss my hairy ass and don't presume to tell me what to do in MY country.

[Undertoad]

So there is absolutely no room for treaties or alliances in your imaginary nation?

[Kitsune]

Originally posted by OnyxCougar


Actually, the fact that the weapons inspectors from the UN didn't find what they were looking for was more telling. Iraq admitted to the UN they had biological and chemical weapons, and said, "We have this much, and we've destroyed this much." then gave us numbers.

So the UN said, "OK, show us." Well, they couldn't.

True, although I guess you could say the same for the US. The fact that the US didn't find the 500 tons of vx/sarin/mustard gas is very telling, too. The US generals said it was there, but they couldn't find it even after months had passed of our occupation. The people of the US said "show us" (or, I wish they would) and, well, they couldn't.

I guess what it comes down to is, like so many people have said, whether this was really a threat or not and what your reaction to the threat is.

UT made the comparison to having a gun pointed at us, others have said that there was no real threat, while another group says we shouldn't even be involved in actions like this.

What I would like to know is this: should the US continue on this path with other countries? I see that, as of last week, Bush is pushing for sanctions on Syria and others are looking at Iran with a curious eye. I get the feeling, personally, that this is starting to get a little dangerous as we get our hands involved in more and spread ourselves thinner and thinner. Yet, it seems, that we're stuck in the Middle East for today and many years/decades to come and there really isn't an easy way out even if we wanted to drop this whole mess.

Personally, I think it has the possibility of ending in disaster with a high loss of American lives, security, and global stability.

[ScottishDude]

Radar, so we should just let them bomb us with nukes? cool! nice work!
no country should be allowed nukes, but y'know america would hardly be happy if they were told to get rid of there ones. hmm there is a word I'm looking for, hipa.., hipia.., hmm will come to me

[OnyxCougar]

Originally posted by Radar



6. Iraq had absolutely nothing to do with the September 11th attacks and had no connection with those who did.

From the Press Trust of India:

LONDON, DECEMBER 14: The mastermind of the September 2001 attacks in the US, Mohammad Atta, was trained in Baghdad by a Palestinian terrorist at the instance of deposed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, a media report said today.

Atta, who was trained by Palestinian terrorist Abu Nidal, visited Baghdad just weeks before the terror attack, The Sunday Telegraph reported. The details of Atta’s visit are contained in a secret memo, written to Hussein by the former head of Iraqi intelligence service Tahir Jalil Habbush Al-Tikriti, it said.

The handwritten memo, a copy of which has been obtained by the daily is dated July 1, 2001 and provides a short resume of a three-day ‘‘work programme’’ Atta had undertaken at Nidal’s base in Baghdad. In the memo, Habbush reports that Atta ‘‘displayed extraordinary effort’’ and demonstrated his ability to lead the team that would be ‘‘responsible for attacking the targets that we have agreed to destroy.’’

Although Iraqi officials refused to disclose how and where they had obtained the document, Ayad Allawi, a member of Iraq’s ruling seven-man presidential committee, said the document was genuine.

‘‘We are uncovering evidence all the time of Saddam’s involvement with Al Qaeda,’’ Allawi said. ‘‘But this is the most compelling piece of evidence that we have found so far. It shows that not only did Saddam have contacts with Al Qaeda, he had contact with those responsible for the September 11 attacks.’’

[OnyxCougar]

Originally posted by Radar
You're ignoring the fact that Iraq was under no obligation to tell the UN or anyone else how many weapons or what kind of weapons they have. Iraq is a sovereign nation and doesn't require permission from anyone to have any weapons they want including nukes. Were I the leader of Iraq, I'd tell America, and the UN to kiss my hairy ass and don't presume to tell me what to do in MY country.

I'm kinda fuzzy on the details, but as I recall, we didn't obliterate Iraq in GW1 because Iraq agreed to what amounts to an agreement to pull out of Kuwait, under UN conditions. IOW, if you pull out and agree to these conditions, we won't stomp you into paste. Iraq agreed to those conditions, and then reneged. Apperantly, that agreement made Iraq feel obligated to report it's WMD, (although, as stated, those reports were lies.)

Whether you think they were under obligation or not is irrelevant. Iraq is a member nation of the UN, and Iraq seemed to think it had an obligation to report to the UN, and lied.

[Radar]

So there is absolutely no room for treaties or alliances in your imaginary nation?

I don't have an imaginary nation. I'm talking about the United States of America and what was a reality in this country. And I, like the the founders of the United States of America, am just fine with making treaties. We can make non-aggression treaties, trade agreement treaties, etc. Just no treaty that involves using the US military to defend any nation other than the United States.

From the Press Trust of India:

And that article proves what? That one of the terrorists happened to visit Iraq? Guess what? the other 19 were living, training, and working in America. Does that mean America planned the attacks on September 11th?

So again, no amount of stretching will provide a link. The only link between Saddam and Al Queda is a mutual and vocal hatred of each other for decades.

Radar, so we should just let them bomb us with nukes?

Who said anything about letting people bomb us with nukes? Every country can have any weapon they want and doesn't require our permission or that of the UN. That doesn't mean we let them bomb us. Lately it seems the only way America won't attack you is if you have nukes. Nukes are just a way to make sure people don't do something stupid. It's like the old saying, "If everyone has a gun, everyone is polite".

We can peacefully ask them not to make nukes, or see if we can bribe them, but in the end no country or group of countries has the authority to tell another how they will defend themselves. Just as no person or group of people has the authority to tell you that you can't own a gun.

The supporters of the war in Iraq (Anti-Americans) sing a different tune when asked the following...

If the UN told America to disarm and said they would send in inspectors from Russia, Cuba, North Korea, Iraq, Lybia, Lebanon, and China into America to go through military bases, the Pentagon, the Whitehouse, hospitals, businesses, and even American homes at 3am without warning, with armed troops supporting them to make sure we got rid of all WMD's, what would you say? What if the people in China didn't like the way Americans were being treated and they pointed to the people unjustly being locked in jail for drug sales or use as the reason? What if China told George W. Bush to step down or they'd attack America? Do you think we should comply? If not, why is it ok to expect the leader of Iraq (equally sovereign as America) to step down or to threaten them? Why is it ok to tell them to disarm and to send inspectors in?

What makes you think American government has the authority to tell other sovereign nations what weapons they may or may not have when they don't even have the legal authority to do that to people inside of America.