PDA

View Full Version : Saddam's Execution


The Source
12-29-2006, 04:57 PM
Topics: Saddam's Execution & The U.S. Government
I am about to make a wierd prediction, and I hope that no-one will hate me for it. After listening to the news for the past few weeks, I began to realize a very scarry reality. Now, I am not saying for 100% fact that this will happen, but I am saying that it is a possibility. A few weeks ago, one of Saddam's half-borthers broke out of American custody. For several weeks now, I began to realize that Saddam may not meet his fate. I am beginning to think that somehow he will be sprung from custody, and then he will reign over Iraq again. Please, don't hate me, but I am getting a bad feeling about this.

One thing that keyed me off to this is a statement made. Someone went on record saying, "Iraq was better off under Saddam's control."

I hope I am dead wrong.

igyman
12-29-2006, 05:06 PM
I may be a little rash when I say this, but if your feeling is correct, good for Saddam!! We all know Iraq was invaded under false pretenses and we all know it was never a threat to the US. Who knows if Saddam's trial was a real trial.
Don't kill me for this, I am not a supporter of any form of terrorism, but we can't be sure Saddam is one. Not by listening to the US media. Maybe I'm just rambling nonsense, maybe someone knows something I don't, but as far as I remember those supposed mobile weapon factories, or whatever, were never proven to have existed.

The Source
12-29-2006, 05:16 PM
The local news just reported that Iraqi officials have not received Saddam from American custody. I am a supporter of hanging Saddam. There are just times when I get very bad vibes.

Negative Sun
12-29-2006, 05:36 PM
I may be a little rash when I say this, but if your feeling is correct, good for Saddam!! We all know Iraq was invaded under false pretenses and we all know it was never a threat to the US. Who knows if Saddam's trial was a real trial.
Don't kill me for this, I am not a supporter of any form of terrorism, but we can't be sure Saddam is one. Not by listening to the US media. Maybe I'm just rambling nonsense, maybe someone knows something I don't, but as far as I remember those supposed mobile weapon factories, or whatever, were never proven to have existed.
He still did orchestrate almost an entire genocide though, people have been sentenced to death for less than that...

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-29-2006, 05:39 PM
He still did orchestrate almost an entire genocide though, people have been sentenced to death for less than that...
People have been allowed to do far more as well.

Aash Li
12-29-2006, 05:57 PM
*shakes her head* I some how stumbled across the black helicopter crowd. Excuse me while I return to reality...

Titanius Anglesmith
12-29-2006, 06:32 PM
It was still a completely dumb decision to invade Iraq. Not only did they have no connection to 9/11, but they had absolutely 0 WMDs. And now we refuse to leave because "the job isn't done."

So Saddam shouldn't even be in our prison. He did absolutely nothing to us. The only reason we have him is because the president wants revenge on him for "tryin to kill his daddy."

Diego Varen
12-29-2006, 06:37 PM
Saddam was an evil man, so he deserves execution. Saddam's life is confusing me all the time. One minute, I thought he was dead, then he's alive, then he's dead. It's confusing me!

Jae Onasi
12-29-2006, 06:46 PM
Saddam was tried and is being executed by his own countrymen, not the US, for crimes against humanity (wiping out entire Kurdish villages with nerve gas, just for starters). He's scheduled to be executed sometime before 9p CST/3am GMT today/tomorrow. They are going to videotape the hanging but will not release it publicly.

I guarantee if Saddam escapes, he will not stay underground long at all--he likes power too much and enjoys attention. He likely wouldn't stay alive very long, either--the Shi'a majority, who were oppressed by him for years, would find him and end his life very quickly.

The Source
12-29-2006, 06:55 PM
I hope justice is swift.

Totenkopf
12-29-2006, 08:17 PM
Makes one wonder what they'll do with the body. If his hanging is merely videotaped, would not the "black helicopter crowd" assert that he didn't really die afterall? Maybe he'll end up in Rio with Elvis, Hoffa and ET. :xp: But seriously, even if SH's death were "miraculously" avoided or even somwhow faked, he's been effectively marginalized. With his power base essentially destroyed, it's unlikely he'll return to power in any real sense of the word.

Grey Master
12-29-2006, 08:46 PM
I hope he dies slowly for all the suffering he has caused.

The Architect
12-29-2006, 09:03 PM
Saddam's Execution
I am about to make a wierd prediction, and I hope that no-one will hate me for it. After listening to the news for the past few weeks, I began to realize a very scarry reality. Now, I am not saying for 100% fact that this will happen, but I am saying that it is a possibility. A few weeks ago, one of Saddam's half-borthers broke out of American custody. For several weeks now, I began to realize that Saddam may not meet his fate. I am beginning to think that somehow he will be sprung from custody, and then he will reign over Iraq again. Please, don't hate me, but I am getting a bad feeling about this.

One thing that keyed me off to this is a statement made. Someone went on record saying, "Iraq was better off under Saddam's control."

I hope I am dead wrong.

Why would anyone hate you for speculating that Saddam might avoid execution and reign over Iraq again? Because it could happen, but it is unlikely.

Aurora Starfire
12-29-2006, 09:39 PM
EagerWeasel wrote:
It was still a completely dumb decision to invade Iraq. Not only did they have no connection to 9/11, but they had absolutely 0 WMDs. And now we refuse to leave because "the job isn't done."

So Saddam shouldn't even be in our prison. He did absolutely nothing to us. The only reason we have him is because the president wants revenge on him for "tryin to kill his daddy."

Wikipedia wrote:
Saddam initiated Iraq's nuclear enrichment project in the 1980s, with French assistance. The first Iraqi nuclear reactor was named by the French "Osirak", a portmanteau formed from "Osiris", the name of the French experimental reactor that served as template and "Irak", the French spelling of "Iraq". Osirak was destroyed by an Israeli air strike (Operation Opera), because Israel suspected it was going to start producing weapons-grade nuclear material.

I saw a documentary on the History Channel about this. It was absolutely fascinating. Until then I had no idea this had ever occurred. But anyway, my point in all this is, just because we apparantly didn't find any wmd's, doesn't mean he didn't have them.

The Doctor
12-29-2006, 09:56 PM
I don't see how any plan to spring him could succeed, now that the execution is to happen in about three minutes. I think we're actually going to get rid of the scum! :D

EDIT: Yeah, Yeah he's dead! :D:D

SithRevan
12-29-2006, 11:26 PM
Well it is not a question anymore. They just hung him, he is dead, and they just have announced it on CNN and most likely BBC for the UK too. His reign of terror and dictatorship is over.

Grey Master
12-29-2006, 11:37 PM
And good riddance.

Taos
12-30-2006, 12:57 AM
Will be very interesting to see what happens worldwide in the next few days/weeks.

MdKnightR
12-30-2006, 01:41 AM
B.I.H. Saddam!

Carlo El Sanchez
12-30-2006, 02:29 AM
This is so stupid, they should of reconsidered executing him, now that its done their will be more terrorist attacks and controversy... they should of just left him in prison for the rest of his life.

SithRevan
12-30-2006, 02:53 AM
This is so stupid, they should of reconsidered executing him, now that its done their will be more terrorist attacks and controversy... they should of just left him in prison for the rest of his life.

They actually could not have left him in prison because of the fact that the government of Iraq wanted to see the former dictator hang for the crimes agianst the country and it's people. America nor any other country had a say in this decision as Saddam is technically a citizen of Iraq and has to go along with the governments policy over there. I any case I am just glad to see it is finally over.

Dark_Lady
12-30-2006, 02:56 AM
Yes, he's dead! Finally...

Carlo El Sanchez
12-30-2006, 03:15 AM
Rightfuly its never going to be over, theres always going to be terroists theres always going to be terroism, and i just hope that sadam's supporters don't... begin more reigns of terror.. i can easily see it happening for the next days, weeks and months to come.

Totenkopf
12-30-2006, 03:34 AM
No offense HZ, but the terrorists don't need SH as a reason to do whatever they'll do. They are slick enough to use western media to try and make us believe that's the case. Frankly, all SH's execution might do is serve as an excuse to "misbehave" now, much like sports fans will often use their respective teams win/loss as an excuse to riot. If the govt in Iraq hadn't hung Saddam, many of those same people would've commited acts of violence in attempts to force the govt to release him. SH's sentence was basically a Catch-22 situation. Whether he lived or died, it wouldn't make any true difference to the terrorists opposition to the west or modern culture in general.

Ztalker
12-30-2006, 07:01 AM
I may be a little rash when I say this, but if your feeling is correct, good for Saddam!! We all know Iraq was invaded under false pretenses and we all know it was never a threat to the US. Who knows if Saddam's trial was a real trial.

Of course the media has major influence on our opinions. But imo, even thinking he is innocent is wrong. The man killed hundreds, if not thousands of people by torture, war, terrorism, without breaking a sweat.
When the sentence was spoken he said:
"For the people!"
"For the country!"
Or something like that. He's just like Albert Speer..."Wir haben es nicht gewüsst."
Don't see this as a personal assault, but I just know (and feel) the guy is a murderer.

And although I'm not a fan of execution, this is what he deserves. Prison would be to easy. With his connections, prison would be heaven for him.

Justice is served.

HerbieZ
12-30-2006, 07:38 AM
I still think he looks like Boycie from Only fools and horses. Still, good riddence. One less dictator to worry about and less people will die as a result sooo result!

Diego Varen
12-30-2006, 07:50 AM
I still think he looks like Boycie from Only fools and horses. Still, good riddence. One less dictator to worry about and less people will die as a result sooo result!

He looks nothing like Boycie from OFAH. It's only because they both have moustaches. But still, I'm looking foward to what the BBC News have to say about his death.

HerbieZ
12-30-2006, 07:58 AM
But still, I'm looking foward to what the BBC News have to say about his death.

Probably say that he died screaming he loved Tony Blair, England and America.

Diego Varen
12-30-2006, 08:10 AM
Probably say that he died screaming he loved Tony Blair, England and America.

:lol:

Darth InSidious
12-30-2006, 08:35 AM
This does not bode well for how the Iraqi government will solve future problems.

Astrotoy7
12-30-2006, 08:51 AM
Saddam's capture and trial were important and necessary. His execution, not. He is another martyr now. Islamic and other radical groups around the world will only use him as an example of the woes of American Imperialism. This is bad, and in no ways furthers any reconciliation between the nations or the ideological and social barriers that exists between the peoples of the involved nations.

Saddam was an evil mofo, who subjected Shia Muslims and Kurds to imhumanities and cruelty we cannot imagine, let alone have endured if we were ever put in the same situation.

But did the US invade Iraq to protect the Kurds ?? The answer: Post Sept 11 - Colin Powell sat up in front of the UN Security Council and *lied* that Iraq was producing WMDs. Despite protests from within the UN and the Global Community, the US marched into Iraq and deposed Saddam. No WMDs resulted, the world is *not* as safer place - and Iraqis have exchanged one open despot for a more insidious one.

There are Saddam-like despots committing atrocities all over the world, the absolute mess that nations like Zimbabwe and Sudan are in dont seem to warrant as much attention from the White House.

All the while, troops from lower to middle class, and disadvantaged communities make the ultimate sacrifice. It's not fair on their families. They are not safeguarding Liberty or Justice, or protecting a way of life - like in WW2 for example. They are doing what exactly ??

It's at least heartening to see elements of the US political community trying to discern the truth of the situation, and show some consideration of the interests of the troops and their families.

*sigh* what a downer :(

mtfbwya

Hayden Kered
12-30-2006, 09:36 AM
Justice is served!

Here is a video Iraqi TV aired of Saddam's body after the hanging (It is clean and PG-13...unless if you can't handle looking at a dead body)
[tasteless link snipped]

For any one interested in seeing the actual video of him being hanged, just keep checking back with the ^provided link's^ website for updates. I guarantee this site will have it.

Bob Lion54
12-30-2006, 10:15 AM
Saddam's capture and trial were important and necessary. His execution, not. He is another martyr now. Islamic and other radical groups around the world will only use him as an example of the woes of American Imperialism. This is bad, and in no ways furthers any reconciliation between the nations or the ideological and social barriers that exists between the peoples of the involved nations.
Yes, he will be viewed as a martyr to some. However, to many others his death, or rather proof of his death, is a great sigh of relief.

Its hard for most of us to think this way, but many Iraqis feared Saddam would return to power. One reporter said, while she was stationed in Iraq, that she was asked by a group of Sunnis "why don't you put Saddam back in power and we can handle the Iran problem together?"

Many Iraqis feared Saddam was not gone for good.

Saddam's supporters hoped he would return to power and his enemies fear it. We, as Americans, Australians, Canadians, and Europeans simply can't grasp the power of the belief he could return to power. For us it was simple after he was captured. Hes gone. The end. For Iraqis, it was not so simple. His death ends the fear he could return to power and allows Iraq to look to the future without fear of Saddam.

That is what his death means. Its a meaning lost to most of us.

Iraq has many problems that need to be solved. Anyone who thinks a government can be put in place overnight is naive. Look at US history, for instance. We like to think in 1776 we declared independence, defeated the British and set up a legitimate government overnight. The Civil War, which happen in the mid 1800s, shows that the legitimacy of the US government was not unquestioned over fifty years after it was put in place. How long has has the current Iraqi government been in place? Not even three years. Of course there are problems.

So, as we stand now, the fear is that Saddam is a martyr to some people. Yes he is, but the people that view him as a martyr would have found another rallying call if Saddam was not killed. Does anyone seriously believe that they would just sit by and let things unfold? Are they going to attempt terrorist attacks because he was killed? If he wasn't executed, they would have just went home and lived peaceful lives trying to better their country, right? Apparently, thats the view of many who opposed the execution.

So thats a bit of a rant, but its something thats been on my mind since his execution. I've heard many talk of Saddam being a martyr, but on balance, I believe his death will have a greater impact for good than ill.

The Source
12-30-2006, 10:20 AM
Thank god I was wrong. Sometimes I get a bad feeling that is so strong, and then it comes out true. Justice has been served.

Vaelastraz
12-30-2006, 11:51 AM
Justice is served!

Here is a video Iraqi TV aired of Saddam's body after the hanging (It is clean and PG-13...unless if you can't handle looking at a dead body)
[tasteless link snipped]

For any one interested in seeing the actual video of him being hanged, just keep checking back with the ^provided link's^ website for updates. I guarantee this site will have it.

Why would anyone be interested in seeing a video of Sadam being hanged?
I know, that SH was a criminal, who commited terrible crimes. But so have many, who are still alive.
SH did not harm anyone here (at least to my knowledge... if that's not the case I apologize) yet everyone praises his death like a big victory?
If we take a look at some African states, there are situations worse than Iraq had been under SH reign.

Darth InSidious
12-30-2006, 12:07 PM
For all those who speak of how much of a threat Saddam would have been if he were kept alive, I ask: how much of a threat was, say, Rudolph Hoess while imprisoned for the rest of his life? Honestly?

Justice wasn't served. Revenge was. And that is why I must condemn his execution as a cowardly act that gives in to base emotion and has nothing to do with justice. Killing him won't resurrect those he killed.

igyman
12-30-2006, 12:24 PM
Justice wasn't served. Revenge was.
QFE. I just found out a few minutes ago on CNN. I have to say that it frightens me to know that someone like Bush can attack a country for no legitimate reason, get its president imprisoned and then killed. I don't know if Saddam was the criminal everyone says he was, but I don't dismiss the possibility. And if he was truly guilty, he should have still been sentenced to life imprisonment, instead of an execution and a hanging, no less. Disgusting.

But anyway, my point in all this is, just because we apparantly didn't find any wmd's, doesn't mean he didn't have them.
Bush's main justification for the invasion was that they knew for certain Saddam had WMDs and where they are. If that were true, US troops would have had no trouble in finding them and dismantling them. The fact that those WMDs were never found proves that Iraq was invaded with no legitimate reason. If they were real, they would be in the hands of Saddam's supporters right now and if they are the terrorists we are all led to believe, they would have used those weapons by now. Fact is, there were no WMDs.

ET Warrior
12-30-2006, 01:05 PM
Spider Al put it far more eloquently than I could, and since he doesn't frequent these parts I'll just quote him.
I see that some of us haven't come very far since the days in old England when hangings were staged for public entertainment.

Personally I'm sickened by all the juvenile comments that have sprung up all over the internet in the past twenty-four hours, essentially gloating over the killing of a human being.

Whether the person being executed deserves to die or not, only complete neanderthals would ever take pleasure in such an execution. Especially when those neanderthals were never harmed by the criminal in question. I would understand Saddam's victims feeling palpable elation at his death... but Americans? What did Saddam ever do to America? Oh, apart from buy lots of arms from the US... and attack the ideological enemies of the US...

As for all this nonsense like "now there's democracy in Iraq it's all okay", and "hooray, the world has one less tyrant", it's just mindless regurgitation of irrational propaganda. But that's all I'll say on the matter, as there's another thread in the Senate in which the topic was thoroughly well explored:

http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?t=172318

I encourage anyone who's "happy" that Saddam's dead, to go and read it, and ruminate on the questions asked therein.

Vaelastraz
12-30-2006, 01:19 PM
For all those who speak of how much of a threat Saddam would have been if he were kept alive, I ask: how much of a threat was, say, Rudolph Hoess while imprisoned for the rest of his life? Honestly?

Justice wasn't served. Revenge was. And that is why I must condemn his execution as a cowardly act that gives in to base emotion and has nothing to do with justice. Killing him won't resurrect those he killed.

That's what I wanted to say too, but I couldn't put it into words.
I fully agree with Insidious.

Bob Lion54
12-30-2006, 01:58 PM
For all those who speak of how much of a threat Saddam would have been if he were kept alive, I ask: how much of a threat was, say, Rudolph Hoess while imprisoned for the rest of his life? Honestly?
The issue is not the the actual threat he posed but rather, the fear he still held over many of the Iraqi people. He posed no threat, but
Many Iraqis feared Saddam was not gone for good.
Rudolph Hoess was no threat. He held no control over the German people. None of the Nazis did once the war ended because the Germans did not fear them.
Justice wasn't served. Revenge was. And that is why I must condemn his execution as a cowardly act that gives in to base emotion and has nothing to do with justice. Killing him won't resurrect those he killed.
You are correct, nothing will bring back his victims, but justice is a funny word. It means such different things to different people. Maybe its not justice. I don't know. I do know, that for Iraqi, it was a great relief to a country in a horrible mess. That might not be justice, but its something I can look at and feel good about.

I am not happy that he died because of personal reasons but I recognize the evil man he was. I've seen the videos of the crimes he orchestrated and I see the meaning his death has for the families of his victims. Iraq can move on. They do not fear Saddam's return. For that, I am happy.

Its still a difficult road ahead for the Iraqis but his death makes it easier. How much easier is impossible to say, but even a little after the horror they have gone through is something to be hopeful about.

Darth InSidious
12-30-2006, 03:36 PM
The issue is not the the actual threat he posed but rather, the fear he still held over many of the Iraqi people. He posed no threat, but
How much fear can you cause from a prison cell? Given time, he would have faded into the background in his prison, like many serial-killers sentenced to life imprisonment before him.

Rudolph Hoess was no threat. He held no control over the German people. None of the Nazis did once the war ended because the Germans did not fear them.

Really? I'd be bloody terrified of a man who made human skin into lampshades.
As for control, how much control has Saddam had since the war ended? Erm, not much.

You are correct, nothing will bring back his victims, but justice is a funny word. It means such different things to different people. Maybe its not justice. I don't know. I do know, that for Iraqi, it was a great relief to a country in a horrible mess. That might not be justice, but its something I can look at and feel good about.

You can feel good that a human life, no matter how misused, was ended? Perhaps it was a huge relief to the man on the street that Marie-Antoinette was killed, but where do you stop? Where do you draw the line? How many deaths are just? What makes the taking of one life to pay for so many just?

I am not happy that he died because of personal reasons but I recognize the evil man he was. I've seen the videos of the crimes he orchestrated and I see the meaning his death has for the families of his victims. Iraq can move on. They do not fear Saddam's return. For that, I am happy.

Perhaps, but now he has immortality as a martyr, a focal point that can be hagiographed into a messiah-figure. Surely that is an even worse thing than for him to languish in a prison cell, forgotten and alone, far away and unbeknownst to all but a few in the government?

Its still a difficult road ahead for the Iraqis but his death makes it easier. How much easier is impossible to say, but even a little after the horror they have gone through is something to be hopeful about.
How does it make their lives easier? All it does is maybe quench their thirst for revenge?

And what of the political implications? I ask the question again: where do you draw the line? Will the Iraqi government become akin to the French Revolution, and consume itself in a tide of blood? I find this far more worrying than the continued existence of one man in a prison cell, broken, defeated and eventually forgotten.

@Everyone: BTW, people are 'hanged' not hung ;)

TK-8252
12-30-2006, 03:47 PM
less people will die as a result sooo result!

The opposite is true. More Iraqis have died since the 2003 invasion in a span of just three years than Hussein probably could have killed off in the remainder of his life.

Negative Sun
12-30-2006, 04:15 PM
Well we'll never find that out now will we? And I think that's for the best!

Titanius Anglesmith
12-30-2006, 05:00 PM
People talk about "oh yay a dictator is gone and and so many more lives will be saved." A question I'd like to ask is, why Saddam? There are hundreds of dangerous dictators in the world, so why Saddam in particular?

Well actually, I know the answer. It's because George Bush doesn't like him. They used the excuse that there was "irrefutable evidence" that he had WMDs, when in fact he had none, to invade Iraq so Bush could take out his revenge on Saddam.

Echoing what TK-8252 said, many more Iraqis have died because of our presence there. Also, thousands of our own troops have died, and unlike so many people have said before, they are not protecting our freedom. I get sick of that excuse. Hussein never put our freedom at stake.

Samnmax221
12-30-2006, 05:19 PM
Here's a leaked video, you can't see anything after he falls through the trapdoor though, SFW as long as no ones looking over your shoulder.

[Video Link snipped]


Mod note: No links to morbid videos in this forum please. ~M

Titanius Anglesmith
12-30-2006, 05:35 PM
I would rather not watch a man hang. It doesn't give me pleasure.

The Source
12-30-2006, 07:58 PM
People talk about "oh yay a dictator is gone and and so many more lives will be saved." A question I'd like to ask is, why Saddam? There are hundreds of dangerous dictators in the world, so why Saddam in particular?

Well actually, I know the answer. It's because George Bush doesn't like him. They used the excuse that there was "irrefutable evidence" that he had WMDs, when in fact he had none, to invade Iraq so Bush could take out his revenge on Saddam.

Echoing what TK-8252 said, many more Iraqis have died because of our presence there. Also, thousands of our own troops have died, and unlike so many people have said before, they are not protecting our freedom. I get sick of that excuse. Hussein never put our freedom at stake.
"So why Saddam in particular?"
Why not?

List of Saddam's Exploits:
1. Took over a country from within. Not through an election. (By Force)
2. After taking over Iraq, he killed the former government.
3. Used innocent Iraqi people as sheilds during war.
4. Threw babies and children into a pit of angry dogs, and then watched while they were torn apart.
5. Tested various poisonous gasses on his people.
6. Partaken on several ocassion in ethnic cleansing.
7. Went to an Iraqi town meeting. Asked the people who gathered there if they knew particular traitors. Forced Iraqis to turn in innocent people who were in the audience, and proceeded to have each one of them killed.
8. Went to another town meeting, and asked a group of Iraqis who was in charge. He ended up killing several people until he heard the words, "You are."
9. Went into another country, and tried to perform ethnic cleansing.
10. Encouraged his children and half-brothers to kill innocent people.
11. As a result of his own nuturing, Saddam's sons killed children on a soccer team, for they kept loosiing. They also killed kids for fun.
12. Held his own people hostage.
13. Was a fan of Joeseph Startline, and built his government upon Starline's beliefs.
14. Tested Scud Missles on the Iraqi people.
15. Attempted to have several leaders assasinated.
16. ....Fill in the blanks...

Is that enough for you? I can go on if you like. I can also be very discriptive in what I know.

TK-8252
12-30-2006, 08:11 PM
Mac, that's nothing compared to what some leaders did and still are doing today. Just look at Kim Jong-Ill in North Korea. Only country left that still has concentration camps. So why didn't we invade North Korea? Oh yeah, I forgot, they can actually defend themselves - unlike Saddam could.

And I'm not sure why you would call Stalin "Startline" or "Starline."

Totenkopf
12-30-2006, 09:23 PM
Mac, that's nothing compared to what some leaders did and still are doing today. Just look at Kim Jong-Ill in North Korea. Only country left that still has concentration camps. So why didn't we invade North Korea? Oh yeah, I forgot, they can actually defend themselves - unlike Saddam could.

And I'm not sure why you would call Stalin "Startline" or "Starline."


Actually...............it's that 800 lb gorilla called the PRC. Were China to sit on the sidelines, KJI's regime wouldn't last a year.

The Doctor
12-30-2006, 11:02 PM
Well, even though the video was removed from the forum here, I've seen it myself. It got me thinking... You hear of all the terrible things he's done, and the people he's killed... and yet, when he's standing there, he seems like just an ordinary man. You don't see a cold blooded killer, or a terrible monster. You just see a man.

I wonder if he was afraid.

Astrotoy7
12-31-2006, 12:01 AM
Spider Al put it far more eloquently than I could, and since he doesn't frequent these parts I'll just quote him.

QFE...

Spider and ET are too blue collar for the likes of AHTO eh ;)

mtfbwya

Rogue Nine
12-31-2006, 04:32 AM
"So why Saddam in particular?"
Why not?

List of Saddam's Exploits:
1. Took over a country from within. Not through an election. (By Force)
2. After taking over Iraq, he killed the former government.
3. Used innocent Iraqi people as sheilds during war.
4. Threw babies and children into a pit of angry dogs, and then watched while they were torn apart.
5. Tested various poisonous gasses on his people.
6. Partaken on several ocassion in ethnic cleansing.
7. Went to an Iraqi town meeting. Asked the people who gathered there if they knew particular traitors. Forced Iraqis to turn in innocent people who were in the audience, and proceeded to have each one of them killed.
8. Went to another town meeting, and asked a group of Iraqis who was in charge. He ended up killing several people until he heard the words, "You are."
9. Went into another country, and tried to perform ethnic cleansing.
10. Encouraged his children and half-brothers to kill innocent people.
11. As a result of his own nuturing, Saddam's sons killed children on a soccer team, for they kept loosiing. They also killed kids for fun.
12. Held his own people hostage.
13. Was a fan of Joeseph Startline, and built his government upon Starline's beliefs.
14. Tested Scud Missles on the Iraqi people.
15. Attempted to have several leaders assasinated.
16. ....Fill in the blanks...

Is that enough for you? I can go on if you like. I can also be very discriptive in what I know.
Uh, I'd like to see some sources cited for those. They have a touch of sensationalism about them. Saddam wasn't the nicest of people, but even he didn't deserve to be lied about. Hate him for what he did, not what some people say he did.

And like others have said, Saddam was just one of many dictators the world still possesses. That list is all well and good, but others have even longer and more atrocious ones. What's being done about them?

Vaelastraz
12-31-2006, 06:02 AM
So, there's still work to do for the USA then, isn't it MacCorp?
There are many dictators out there. Why not invade those countries too?
That reminds me of "world police".

Darth InSidious
12-31-2006, 08:48 AM
Mac, that's nothing compared to what some leaders did and still are doing today. Just look at Kim Jong-Ill in North Korea. Only country left that still has concentration camps. So why didn't we invade North Korea? Oh yeah, I forgot, they can actually defend themselves - unlike Saddam could.

Aww, poor defenseless ickle Saddam.

Just because Saddam was unprepared for war doesn't mean that he was any less evil. Sure, you could take on North Korea. You'd lose, though. Why? China.

@Valaestrez: I'd rather that the US was distracted doing that than overriding the sovereignty of legitimate, democratic nations. At least *some* good has come out of the Iraq thing.

The Source
12-31-2006, 09:09 AM
Originally Posted by TK-8252
Mac, that's nothing compared to what some leaders did and still are doing today. Just look at Kim Jong-Ill in North Korea. Only country left that still has concentration camps. So why didn't we invade North Korea? Oh yeah, I forgot, they can actually defend themselves - unlike Saddam could.
I made a spelling error with Stalin's name. Lol... I should have looked it up.

You have to start somewhere man. Saddam was only the beginning. If you have plans on removing dictators from the world, you start with what you have and then you move up. One down and several to go.

When you have plans on attacking someone like Saddam, you proceed without emotion or remorse.

My source: 'PBS NOW - Episode Aired in 2003'.

People really don't know what type of psycho Saddam was. I don't know what is worse: the public's ability to be nieve, or the fact they would defend such chaos. Out of all the things we have done with Iraq, I am glad we encouraged his people to hang him.

Calling Saddam a 'person' is too kind. He was an animal.

Negative Sun
12-31-2006, 10:53 AM
You know, I live in the UK, so there's no real need for me to back the States...I would rather that the USA did some world policing than have all these maniacs going around killing people with nerve gas and/or making nuclear bombs...

It's like with the Greek and Roman Empires, they conquered other countries, and made them their own, but was that really such a bad thing in the end? The Romans have left a huge legacy that still lives today and is the cornerstone of pretty much the entire Western world...They had such civilised society, even compared to some countries today, they had a democracy at some point even, fine, they weren't perfect, but who is? The Greek left a huge impact as well, they influenced the Romans first, and so influenced everything that came after...

I feel the same about the USA, I say let them take over the world, especially those backwater countries, really, how much worse off could they all be when your own leader is murdering you by the thousands? At least the USA has the decency to stay and try to leave the place in a better state than it was...That deserves respect, especially all those soldiers there dying for a country that isn't even their own, Vietnam anyone?

Sabretooth
12-31-2006, 11:01 AM
Now I would have given off a boatload of hoopla here, but right now all I'll say is...

Saddam did not deserve his execution. The number of innocents he killed is far lesser than the civilian casualties in Iraq and the modern Iraq is an uncertain, violent and unpredictable land. Saddam may have been an evil dictator, but he was a good administrator, and Iraq under Saddam was much better off than many other Islamic nations. I believe that a quiet life sentence for him would have been enough. Execution will only lead to more violence.

Negative Sun
12-31-2006, 11:23 AM
Now I would have given off a boatload of hoopla here, but right now all I'll say is...

Saddam did not deserve his execution. The number of innocents he killed is far lesser than the civilian casualties in Iraq and the modern Iraq is an uncertain, violent and unpredictable land. Saddam may have been an evil dictator, but he was a good administrator, and Iraq under Saddam was much better off than many other Islamic nations. I believe that a quiet life sentence for him would have been enough. Execution will only lead to more violence.
Are you saying that Iraq under Saddam wasn't an uncertain, violent and unpredictable land? Again, he murdered his own people at random or whenever he felt like it, after the First Gulf War he murdered anyone who had the guts to stand up to him...He should have been finished then, but no, we did the right thing and pulled back, and look where that got the Kurds left in that country...And a lot of other people too...The number of innocents he killed is an insane amount, especially if you say that was a stable government...He got what he deserved, a death much less painful than most of the ones he caused...

igyman
12-31-2006, 12:02 PM
I feel the same about the USA, I say let them take over the world
You wouldn't be saying that if it was your country they were invading. I say let's not let them take over the world. I say the world should put them in their place, not with violence and wars, but with politics and diplomacy.

At least the USA has the decency to stay and try to leave the place in a better state than it was...
:rofl: You, my friend, are really deluding yourself if you truly believe that. ''Leave the place in a better state...'' Yeah right! I'll just say two words: 1. Bosnia; 2. Kosovo.

Vietnam anyone?
Vietnam. Yeah, let's see, a country that has never done anything to the US was invaded, its civilians were slaughtered by the invading US troops, much like they did in Iraq... need I say more?

Totenkopf
12-31-2006, 03:36 PM
You wouldn't be saying that if it was your country they were invading. I say let's not let them take over the world. I say the world should put them in their place, not with violence and wars, but with politics and diplomacy.

:rofl: You, my friend, are really deluding yourself if you truly believe that. ''Leave the place in a better state...'' Yeah right! I'll just say two words: 1. Bosnia; 2. Kosovo.

Vietnam. Yeah, let's see, a country that has never done anything to the US was invaded, its civilians were slaughtered by the invading US troops, much like they did in Iraq... need I say more?

Relax, Igy, you've nothing to worry about. The US doesn't have the resources to try and take over the whole world. Nor does it have the interest in doing so. And frankly, the US public would lose patience too quickly to do something like that anyway.

Two other problems with your anaylsis. One, Vietnam wasn't invaded. It was already split in the '50s between north and south. Thank the french for troubles in indochina post WW2. The US ultimately backed a series of regimes that lost public support in the south. Not an invasion. Let's not forget that Vietnam didn't exist in some academic vacuum. There were many other nations involved at different levels. The USSR and PRC were providing weapons and supplies to the north. The Brits were even selling RR Merlin jet engines to the NV. Basically, you'd have to argue that given the level of international involvement in the conflict, it wasn't merely the US that was the cause of such "slaughter", but rather many parties. But as long as you ARE going to blame the US, perhaps you should lay the deaths of a great many civilians in WW2 at our feet as well. Afterall, Hitler's armies never did actually invade the US. I suppose we should have used politics to convince him of his error before he actually compounded it by attacking US soil. Turning on the Japanese shouldn't have been a problem for him b/c he'd already betrayed Stalin.

The Balkans in the 90's are a different scenario. It was the EU that wanted to put boots on the ground in that region, or at least European nations. The US was initially content to assume the role of air support. Your former country of Yugoslavia disintegrated with Tito's death. Had the western countries not inserted themselves into your bloody civil war, how do you think it would've ended? I'd guess somewhere along the lines of Lebanaon. Face it, the EU didn't want your violence (or refugees more likely) spilling over into their borders. The US did supply a ground presence, but nothing on the order of what was supplied by EU countries. Perhaps you should ask yourself why the member states of the immensely richer EU to your north haven't gotten off their arses to rebuild your region. Probably for the same reason that they do nothing about situations in Darfur and elsewhere. It's soooo much easier to pontificate about US failure than to do anything constructive yourself. FTR, though, I think Clinton should have left the euros to fend for themselves militarily. I don't think we needed to bomb Serbia.

TK-8252
12-31-2006, 04:06 PM
Are you saying that Iraq under Saddam wasn't an uncertain, violent and unpredictable land? Again, he murdered his own people at random or whenever he felt like it, after the First Gulf War he murdered anyone who had the guts to stand up to him...He should have been finished then, but no, we did the right thing and pulled back, and look where that got the Kurds left in that country...And a lot of other people too...The number of innocents he killed is an insane amount, especially if you say that was a stable government...He got what he deserved, a death much less painful than most of the ones he caused...

Saddam was not killing the estimated 100 people a day that are being killed now. Iraq, while a ****ty and repressive place to live under Saddam, was CLEARLY better off with him in power than the current government. There were not car bombs going off every day in markets. There were not killers in the streets kidnapping hundreds of people for simple ethnic differences. There was not genocide. There was not even ethnic cleansing. Saddam was not trying to kill off everyone who was Kurdish. He was trying to put down their rebellions. Yes, there was torture for sure. There were horrible atrocities. But what's going on right now, and will probably get even worse after we pull out, is much worse than what people had to go through with Saddam in power.

What DOES happen after we pull out anyway? Many experts are saying that while it cannot be said for sure what the outcome will be, it's a good guess that some other kind of tyrant will come to power. But this time, he will not be a secular Muslim like Saddam, who at one point was cooperative with the United States. He will be a radical Shi'a Muslim, with close ties to Iran, who will be just as brutal if not more than Saddam. There will be Islamic law, and no secular or democratic institutions. Everything we worked to accomplish in Iraq will be done away with. Just like after we pulled out of Vietnam.

The Source
12-31-2006, 04:21 PM
What is very ineteresting is that there are two personalities to the world. When the United States takes action, the world complains about us policing their issues. When the United States doesn't take action, the world complains about us not doing anything.

Make up your minds.

HerbieZ
12-31-2006, 04:44 PM
Well, even though the video was removed from the forum here, I've seen it myself. It got me thinking... You hear of all the terrible things he's done, and the people he's killed... and yet, when he's standing there, he seems like just an ordinary man. You don't see a cold blooded killer, or a terrible monster. You just see a man.

I wonder if he was afraid.

There could been have a trampoline underneath the trapdoor.

The Source
12-31-2006, 05:15 PM
There could been have a trampoline underneath the trapdoor.
So they can relive the moment over and over again without seeing a recording. Eventually, I think his body would detatch from his head. Talk about gross.

Titanius Anglesmith
12-31-2006, 05:35 PM
Sometimes I wish the US would take on the policies of the Prime Directive (from Star Trek). Just let other worlds (in this case, countries) handle themselves and progress on their own. We have no right to decide the fate of another country that has never acted aggressively toward us.

*MacCorp, That's a nice long list that I'd say only about half of is true. As others have said, there are plenty of other dictators in the world that have done much worse things. Should we play world police and go remove and execute all of them?

igyman
12-31-2006, 05:41 PM
When the United States doesn't take action, the world complains about us not doing anything.

This is the first I've heard of this version. Can you name at least one case, when the world complained about America not attacking a country?

Darth InSidious
12-31-2006, 06:17 PM
You know, I live in the UK,

No you don't, you're Scottish. I thought it was all vive l'independance with you...No?

so there's no real need for me to back the States

...Other than if we don't, the US screw us up economically for not playing nice poodle.
...OTOH, if we do, Russia and the EU screw us up. Rock, hard place...Which way to go...

...I would rather that the USA did some world policing than have all these maniacs going around killing people with nerve gas and/or making nuclear bombs...

And what if they deem that the SNP is dangerous? What if they invade Scotland? It might seem unlikely, but America is paranoid and xenophobic, and anti-British. Given that one in five Americans can't point to their own country on a map, and, IIRC, one in eight don't have a passport, do you think they will notice the difference between Scotland and England?
[/QUOTE=GodSlayer]
It's like with the Greek and Roman Empires,
[/QUOTE]
The two are rather different. The Greeks weren't a unified group and their empires were unstable and fine if you counted as a male Greek citizen who was approved of by the government. Otherwise it could get pretty unpleasant. Ask Themistocles, or Socrates about that last part in particular. As for the Romans, they were uncouth, arrogant xenophobes, convinced of their own right and brilliance, and determined that anything done by an outsider was inferior.

They also buggered anything that moved and viewed women as effectively slaves to stay at home and make babies, while at the same time having a bizarre Hyacinth Bucket-ish obsession with their own strange brand of what was proper. Oh, and their writers were by and large the dullest load of duffers you could ever hope to snore trying to read. About the only ones worth the effort are Seneca and Plautus. And lets not start on the Games.

they conquered other countries, and made them their own, but was that really such a bad thing in the end?
You mean that they destroyed entire civilisations and made them all homogenised into one, riddled with violence, cruelty and bad poetry?

The Romans have left a huge legacy that still lives today and is the cornerstone of pretty much the entire Western world...

Yes. Our civilisation is based on the Games, slaves, an imposed social structure founded on how much moolah you had lying about, mysoginy and creating an illusion of democracy while getting on with good old despotism. Yes, wonderful chaps, the Romans...

They had such civilised society, even compared to some countries today,

O RLY?

they had a democracy at some point even, fine,

Oh, yes. But since legislation was almost entirely ruled by the elite, it was more of an aristocracy.

they weren't perfect, but who is?

Saddam's not perfect either! Sure, he murders a few Kurds here and there, but I'm sure basically he's a good chap!

The Greek left a huge impact as well, they influenced the Romans first, and so influenced everything that came after...

Quite. It is interesting to note that even 'great' philosophers like Aristotle believed in slavery.

I feel the same about the USA, I say let them take over the world, especially those backwater countries,
Well what about their hypocrisy? They weren't so keen on our Empire. In any case, what do you define as a backwater country? You wouldn't like it if the US came in and overrode your nation's sovereignty based on a lie about you harbouring WMD's with hostile intent...

really, how much worse off could they all be when your own leader is murdering you by the thousands?

As opposed to having insurgents blow you up by the hundreds every week? Institutionalised crime vs. Anarchy...It's a tough choice, but at least without the US, the country does have the option of overthrowing their leader.

At least the USA has the decency to stay and try to leave the place in a better state than it was...

The USA has the decency to look after the USA's interests. Nothing more, nothing less.

That deserves respect, especially all those soldiers there dying for a country that isn't even their own, Vietnam anyone?
Vietnam is an extremely sticky situation, and one that was badly handled and botched by the Americans as usual not paying attention to the successes and failures of others.
Relax, Igy, you've nothing to worry about. The US doesn't have the resources to try and take over the whole world.

No. Invading other nations' sovereignty is perfectly acceptable though, apparently. *cough*Natwest Three/Non-ratified extradition treaty*cough*

Nor does it have the interest in doing so.

No. It already *believes* it owns the world. It certainly acts like it.

And frankly, the US public would lose patience too quickly to do something like that anyway.
I suspect one thing US politicians will learn pretty quickly is that provided you can disgust the majority enough to become apathetic, and paint your opponents as being as bad as each other, it doesn't matter if you are disliked or even hated by the majority.

The Balkans in the 90's are a different scenario. It was the EU that wanted to put boots on the ground in that region, or at least European nations. The US was initially content to assume the role of air support. Your former country of Yugoslavia disintegrated with Tito's death. Had the western countries not inserted themselves into your bloody civil war, how do you think it would've ended? I'd guess somewhere along the lines of Lebanaon. Face it, the EU didn't want your violence (or refugees more likely) spilling over into their borders. The US did supply a ground presence, but nothing on the order of what was supplied by EU countries. Perhaps you should ask yourself why the member states of the immensely richer EU to your north haven't gotten off their arses to rebuild your region.

Not our problem? Enough problems at home? The nightmare an operation like that is? Why doesn't the US as World Police Force? Or is it plain old suspicion of the Old World?

It's soooo much easier to pontificate about US failure than to do anything constructive yourself.

Sometimes doing nothing is better than making a bad situation worse.

FTR, though, I think Clinton sould have left the euros to fend for themselves militarily. I don't think we needed to bomb Serbia.
Fine, get your sodding air bases et al. out of my bloody country and I'll be happy with that arrangement, myself.

RaV™
12-31-2006, 06:29 PM
What Bush said about to me made him look more like a TOOL, I'm thankful he's serving his last years as our president.

Negative Sun
12-31-2006, 06:38 PM
You wouldn't be saying that if it was your country they were invading. I say let's not let them take over the world. I say the world should put them in their place, not with violence and wars, but with politics and diplomacy.
Politics and diplomacy? When has that ever worked? What kind of fairy tale world do you live in? Look at the last few millennia, our entire civilization is built on war upon endless war...And why should the world put the USA in their place? Cause that's something you really want to to, form a front AGAINST the US and throw everyone into WW III (excuse the drama)
The US did come into my country though, back in '44 when another such dictator killed millions of innocents, am I glad the US were there? F*** yeah, they saved my granddad from being transported to one of the camps, did some civilians get killed? Yes, but they die in every war...Does that make it right? Of course not, but no one said life was fair huh


:rofl: You, my friend, are really deluding yourself if you truly believe that. ''Leave the place in a better state...'' Yeah right! I'll just say two words: 1. Bosnia; 2. Kosovo.
1) Normandy 1944; 2)Bosnia and Kosovo did not only have US troops in it, and after the US left, there were still NATO troops left there, I should know, my uncle was one of them! 3)Bosnia and Kosovo needed to be rid of a dictator as well, the problem there was that no one knew exactly wtf was going on or who the bad guys were, not even the people themselves....


Vietnam. Yeah, let's see, a country that has never done anything to the US was invaded, its civilians were slaughtered by the invading US troops, much like they did in Iraq... need I say more?
Jee, you think the VC never killed any innocent civilians? That all those US soldiers who died there to save other people were in fact just there for the f***ing sun??? And at least the US are aiming for terrorists and other scumbags who happen to use civilians as a shield, it's not like they're killing people just for the sake of it, unlike some...need I say more?

Samnmax221
12-31-2006, 06:47 PM
You wouldn't be saying that if it was your country they were invading. I say let's not let them take over the world. I say the world should put them in their place, not with violence and wars, but with politics and diplomacy.

That seems to be the general European attitude, at least when you're not begging for foreign aid or trying to drag us into one of your wars.

EDIT: And while we're at it, it seems that you are mixing up the American People with the American Government. Thats a stupid argument and always has been.

igyman
12-31-2006, 07:27 PM
Politics and diplomacy? When has that ever worked?
So basically what you're saying is that because politics and diplomacy don't work very often, we should turn completely to wars and devastation. Forgive me for disagreeing, but I think an effort should be made to make politics and diplomacy work and lessen the need for killing.

And why should the world put the USA in their place? Cause that's something you really want to to, form a front AGAINST the US and throw everyone into WW III
You're contradicting yourself. First you prove that you've read everything I said and now you accuse me of wanting to start World War III, even though I specifically emphasized that I was referring to peaceful means of persuasion - politics and diplomacy. I could accuse you of the same thing and my accusation would even have some merit, according to your attitude towards diplomacy and politics.

Bosnia and Kosovo did not only have US troops in it, and after the US left, there were still NATO troops left there, I should know, my uncle was one of them!
I never said there were only US troops in Bosnia, but they were the majority for a long period of time and neither they nor NATO left Bosnia in a better state. I should know, I have grandparents there!

That seems to be the general European attitude, at least when you're not begging for foreign aid or trying to drag us into one of your wars.
You know, there's a reason world wars have that 'world' prefix - they're fought on a global scale. I know you're referring to WWII by that ''drag us into one of your wars'', because that's the general American attitude. Do you really think Hitler wouldn't have turned on America after he was done with Europe?

And while we're at it, it seems that you are mixing up the American People with the American Government.
No, I'm not. I don't have anything against the American people, some of their attitudes towards the rest of the world, yes, but the people themselves, no.

Negative Sun
12-31-2006, 08:00 PM
No you don't, you're Scottish. I thought it was all vive l'independance with you...No?
Actually, I'm Belgian, but I live in Scotland...

...Other than if we don't, the US screw us up economically for not playing nice poodle.
...OTOH, if we do, Russia and the EU screw us up. Rock, hard place...Which way to go...
I was talking about my opinion as an individual, not that of the country I live in ATM...

And what if they deem that the SNP is dangerous? What if they invade Scotland? It might seem unlikely, but America is paranoid and xenophobic, and anti-British. Given that one in five Americans can't point to their own country on a map, and, IIRC, one in eight don't have a passport, do you think they will notice the difference between Scotland and England?
You are mixing up the American people and their government though...and like I said, I'm not Scottish, just because I live here doesn't make me one, and like you said, it is very unlikely they will invade Scotland or England, even Bush knows better than that...Why do you think he hasn't invaded Iran or Korea yet? Even though he d*** well should...

The two are rather different. The Greeks weren't a unified group and their empires were unstable and fine if you counted as a male Greek citizen who was approved of by the government. Otherwise it could get pretty unpleasant. Ask Themistocles, or Socrates about that last part in particular. As for the Romans, they were uncouth, arrogant xenophobes, convinced of their own right and brilliance, and determined that anything done by an outsider was inferior.

They also buggered anything that moved and viewed women as effectively slaves to stay at home and make babies, while at the same time having a bizarre Hyacinth Bucket-ish obsession with their own strange brand of what was proper. Oh, and their writers were by and large the dullest load of duffers you could ever hope to snore trying to read. About the only ones worth the effort are Seneca and Plautus. And lets not start on the Games.

You mean that they destroyed entire civilisations and made them all homogenised into one, riddled with violence, cruelty and bad poetry?

Yes. Our civilisation is based on the Games, slaves, an imposed social structure founded on how much moolah you had lying about, mysoginy and creating an illusion of democracy while getting on with good old despotism. Yes, wonderful chaps, the Romans...

Oh, yes. But since legislation was almost entirely ruled by the elite, it was more of an aristocracy.
That is your opinion, which is easily formulated in hindsight, are you saying the world would have been better off without the Greek and Roman cultures? IMO their poetry and stories are some of the best ever told, far better than anything that came after Christianity showed up...Their architecture is still used in some of our "modern" buildings nowadays, and as for the aristocracy ruling the democracy, isn't that what happened in most European and even the USA until like the late 1800s in some cases? I would say that puts the Romans a bit ahead of their time...
And I was merely forming an analogy to state my point about the USA, I don't see the need in taking this any further since it is only a matter of opinion...

Well what about their hypocrisy? They weren't so keen on our Empire. In any case, what do you define as a backwater country? You wouldn't like it if the US came in and overrode your nation's sovereignty based on a lie about you harbouring WMD's with hostile intent...
I wouldn't like it either if my own country's ruler called my entire family traitors for no reason and had them thrown into a dungeon or something...Stalemate I'm afraid

As opposed to having insurgents blow you up by the hundreds every week? Institutionalised crime vs. Anarchy...It's a tough choice, but at least without the US, the country does have the option of overthrowing their leader.
Again, if that leader is already murdering his own people at his whim, being a total paranoid calling everyone a traitor until there's no one left TO betray him, what on earth has that country got to lose? The only reason why people get blown up by the hundreds there nowadays is because some radical f***s think it's fun blowing up civilians or patrols on guard, or their own country's policemen...And whenever the US tries to retaliate, they'll hide behind dozens of innocent women and children...



So basically what you're saying is that because politics and diplomacy don't work very often, we should turn completely to wars and devastation. Forgive me for disagreeing, but I think an effort should be made to make politics and diplomacy work and lessen the need for killing.
They do work sometimes, but how can you be diplomatic with radical wackos or dictators like Saddam? Would we rather wait and see what happens *cough*WW2*cough* Or do something about it before it's too late?
People are so anti-USA nowadays, acting as if the US was just as bad as the USSR or f***ing Hitler and his Third Reich...At least in the States you have the freedom to chose what you want to do, you can choose whether or not you want to be in the army, you can choose to back up the war or not, you can choose to call Bush an a**hole on national tv and not get a word said to you...How many people in Iraq could do that with Saddam? Or I could name a few dozen other countries like that...


You're contradicting yourself. First you prove that you've read everything I said and now you accuse me of wanting to start World War III, even though I specifically emphasized that I was referring to peaceful means of persuasion - politics and diplomacy. I could accuse you of the same thing and my accusation would even have some merit, according to your attitude towards diplomacy and politics.Good point, but I still don't think that that kind of diplomacy would lead to anywhere but big trouble...

I never said there were only US troops in Bosnia, but they were the majority for a long period of time and neither they nor NATO left Bosnia in a better state. I should know, I have grandparents there!
Again, who's really to blame for that? The US? The place was a time bomb even before they got there, at least they went in and tried to make a difference...

You know, there's a reason world wars have that 'world' prefix - they're fought on a global scale. I know you're referring to WWII by that ''drag us into one of your wars'', because that's the general American attitude. Do you really think Hitler wouldn't have turned on America after he was done with Europe?
lol, Hitler might have been evil and all, but I think even HE would have thought twice before challenging the US, especially after being at war with the whole of Europe for a few years...

Samnmax221
12-31-2006, 08:16 PM
You know, there's a reason world wars have that 'world' prefix - they're fought on a global scale. I know you're referring to WWII by that ''drag us into one of your wars'', because that's the general American attitude. Do you really think Hitler wouldn't have turned on America after he was done with Europe?
Hitler was more concerned with his "Fortress Europe" than North America at the time. Although he did try to get Mexico to turn on us, which was intercepted by the British. Hitlers whole rise to power was greatly influenced by actions taken by the British and French at the end of WWI.

No, I'm not. I don't have anything against the American people, some of their attitudes towards the rest of the world, yes, but the people themselves, no.
Treating the American people as a whole is silly, we're all different. With the great diversity that exists within most Countries you can't categorize the residents so callously.

Totenkopf
12-31-2006, 08:17 PM
Truth is, most people want the US to take the lead on solving all the world's problems rather than do something themselves. Africa is a prime example. Why doesn't the EU get off it's collective arse and do something in Darfur or Rwanda? B/c the US hasn't taken the lead. Why does the EU sit on the sidelines in the ME? Part internal muslim problem, part ambivalence toward Israel, part trade. Part may even be the realization that there will be no peace in the ME till the radicals are thrown from power or the state of Israel is dismantled. Europe, perhaps b/c it started 2 world wars in the 20th century, is skittish about doing anything. What have the europeans done to help revive Bosnia or Kosovo? Then there's nuke disarmament. America has to go first, b/c somehow the rest of the world will follow suit (can I interest you in, perhaps say, the Brooklyn Bridge). Why doesn't the rest of the world go forward with treaties like Kyoto and lead by example? Prove the critics in the US wrong by demonstrating that the treaty isn't designed to hobble the US economy. Fact of the matter is, the rest of the world wants to hit up Uncle Sam for money and resources, but don't want the US involved in the decision making.

@DI--Have you started drinking already to celebrate the new year? :drink3: I must wonder just how paranoid you are after reading that screed. Also, Scotland is still part of the UK last I checked. Perhaps I should ask if your problems with the US aren't derived from suspicions about "the new world". Fact is, no country ever acts with purely altruistic motives. Most people don't either, for that matter.

One must wonder how one goes about overthrowing an intrusive and violent government of your peers. The Germans couldn't do it, the Hungarians and Czechs either. How many oppressed Arabs are able to dethrone their despotic rulers? Africans? Asians? These things rarely happen without some form of outside help.

Let's keep a little perspective here. Fact, if the US had the power you seem to depict, Iraq wouldn't even be an issue, just an academic footnote. Simply put, the US doesn't have the means or internal support to INVADE the rest of the world. Nor would a US government be able to continue an invasion if casualties started numbering in the 10s of 1000s, b/c the political cost at home would be too high (unless of course it were repelling an invasion of US territory). Like any other country, the US tries to use it's political and economic ties to influence events to it's favor. The world endured 200+ years of European meddling at various levels, propelling us toward the mess we face today. Now, should we ignore problems and hope they go away b/c sometimes doing nothing is preferable to taking action now? Chamberlain thought so in the 30's (as well as many others, to be fair). Does it work? No. Take care of the wound now or let it fester? Hmm..... Also, it's sublimely arrogant to assume that the US has no problems either. Besides, as history recalls, your country invaded my country at least once (twice if one wants to count the revolution). If you don't want the airbases in your sodding country, I believe you just have to keep pushing the Labour Party to get rid of them once and for all. Good luck trying. Still, I guess it gives you at least one NY's resolution to pursue. ;)

@Igy-you seem to forget WW1. It was two wars, not one. So, the US has the right to be a bit skittish about Europe. A big part of the reason the wars were global was due to Europe's spending 3 or more centuries spreading it's tentacles around the globe. Also, how are you going to try to align the whole world up politically to bloodlessly take down the US or at least keep it in check (from your perspective)? At what cost? What devils will you make deals with to attempt to achieve this end? How long do you think such alliances would last? It's hard enough to get just two countries to agree on something, nevermind more than two.

Negative Sun
12-31-2006, 08:21 PM
Well said Totenkopf, couldn't agree more!

Darth InSidious
12-31-2006, 08:31 PM
Actually, I'm Belgian, but I live in Scotland...
I slouch corrected.

I was talking about my opinion as an individual, not that of the country I live in ATM...

OK. How about the fact that you can be extradited without even prima faciae evidence being presented?

You are mixing up the American people and their government though

Mmmm...nope. Since the government is representative of the nation, it seems safe to assume that the national statistics have some implication upon the legislature.

...and like I said, I'm not Scottish, just because I live here doesn't make me one, and like you said, it is very unlikely they will invade Scotland or England, even Bush knows better than that...

Why? What's to stop him? What benefit is there in us as an independent nation/nations that wouldn't be greater as a 51st State, without most of the problems?

Why do you think he hasn't invaded Iran or Korea yet? Even though he d*** well should...

I fail to see the correlation. I somehow suspect he hasn't invaded Iran or Korea because even he can see that would bring everything tumbling down around him.

That is your opinion, which is easily formulated in hindsight, are you saying the world would have been better off without the Greek and Roman cultures?
I'm saying that there are cultures infinitely superior in the history of the world on which our current society could and perhaps should have been founded. There is also a certain degree of professional bias in this, I should point out, though.

IMO their poetry and stories are some of the best ever told,

There myths are little more than proto-Neighbours - it's all who slept with whom, and so-and-so getting revenge for the murder of their father...And if you had read them in the original, I'm not sure you'd agree. They are horrendously stale.

far better than anything that came after Christianity showed up...
They're simpler, contain unrealistic characters and situations...If you're reading a nice easy translation they're OK, but in the original they are deathly.

Their architecture is still used in some of our "modern" buildings nowadays,
And most of their buildings are almost totally ruined. It is reasonably aesthetically pleasing, but it can also be overbearing and dull, and for the most part, modern architecture is recovering from New Brutalism still, IMO...

and as for the aristocracy ruling the democracy, isn't that what happened in most European and even the USA until like the late 1800s in some cases? I would say that puts the Romans a bit ahead of their time...
My point was that they were not the positive force you were saying they were.

And I was merely forming an analogy to state my point about the USA, I don't see the need in taking this any further since it is only a matter of opinion...

Fine. Another thread perhaps?

I wouldn't like it either if my own country's ruler called my entire family traitors for no reason and had them thrown into a dungeon or something...Stalemate I'm afraid

You'd prefer to be killed by insurgents? I'm not claiming either is better, just pointing out that neither situation is particularly good.

Again, if that leader is already murdering his own people at his whim, being a total paranoid calling everyone a traitor until there's no one left TO betray him, what on earth has that country got to lose? The only reason why people get blown up by the hundreds there nowadays is because some radical f***s think it's fun blowing up civilians or patrols on guard, or their own country's policemen...And whenever the US tries to retaliate, they'll hide behind dozens of innocent women and children...
So in effect what has changed?

The country is more disorganised and there are no benefits living there any more - as far as I can see that is all that has changed...

Totenkopf
12-31-2006, 08:41 PM
There is also a certain degree of professional bias in this, I should point out, though...

Just curious, but how so? Are you an anthropologist? Archeologist? Historian?

igyman
12-31-2006, 08:49 PM
Also, how are you going to try to align the whole world up politically to bloodlessly take down the US or at least keep it in check
If those fifty-something states united into the USA, then European states can probably do the same - and are doing it through the EU, but in a slow and peaceful manner.

Darth InSidious
12-31-2006, 08:57 PM
@DI--Have you started drinking already to celebrate the new year? :drink3:
No. No need for personal comments, either.

I must wonder just how paranoid you are after reading that screed.

Slightly. But given that America has effectively treated this country as a vassal and invaded our sovereignty several times in recent memory (the Natwest Three extradition, the Iraq invasion, the 'Yo Blair' incident all spring to mind...), I hardly think I'm being so paranoid.

Also, Scotland is still part of the UK last I checked.

I was referring to opinions voiced by GodSlayer in previous posts.

Perhaps I should ask if your problems with the US aren't derived from suspicions about "the new world".

Nope. Got no problems with Canada. Wouldn't have any problems with South America if the nations therein were more stable.

Fact is, no country ever acts with purely altruistic motives. Most people don't either, for that matter.

No, but partly altruistic ones would be nice to see.

One must wonder how one goes about overthrowing an intrusive and violent government of your peers. The Germans couldn't do it, the Hungarians and Czechs either. How many oppressed Arabs are able to dethrone their despotic rulers? Africans? Asians? These things rarely happen without some form of outside help.

Perhaps. But eventually all despots are de-throned.

Let's keep a little perspective here. Fact, if the US had the power you seem to depict, Iraq wouldn't even be an issue, just an academic footnote. Simply put, the US doesn't have the means or internal support to INVADE the rest of the world. Nor would a US government be able to continue an invasion if casualties started numbering in the 10s of 1000s, b/c the political cost at home would be too high (unless of course it were repelling an invasion of US territory).

Invade? No. But wars can be fought by other means. I call attention to Gazprom.

Like any other country, the US tries to use it's political and economic ties to influence events to it's favor. The world endured 200+ years of European meddling at various levels, propelling us toward the mess we face today.
So you're repeating all our mistakes now! Wonderful!
Now, should we ignore problems and hope they go away b/c sometimes doing nothing is preferable to taking action now? Chamberlain thought so in the 30's (as well as many others, to be fair). Does it work? No.

Mhm. Godwin!
Seriously, WWII was an entirely different kettle of fish. There, the problem was not contained or indeed particularly low-level.

Take care of the wound now or let it fester? Hmm..... Also, it's sublimely arrogant to assume that the US has no problems either.

Never did. And sometimes leaving a wound to heal naturally is better than picking at it endlessly.

Besides, as history recalls, your country invaded my country at least once (twice if one wants to count the revolution). Well, for the revolution, the 'no taxation' claim was not entirely fair, since, IIRC we were still running at a loss paying for protection for you because you p----- off the natives. But that's a discussion for another thread.

I don't remember an invasion from my own historical studies, or in fact from a quick scan of the Wikipedia history of the US...unless you refer to the Southern Theatre and defeat culminating at Yorktown?
If you don't want the airbases in your sodding country, I believe you just have to keep pushing the Labour Party to get rid of them once and for all. Good luck trying. Still, I guess it gives you at least one NY's resolution to pursue. ;)
Exactly, because (a) The Labour Party doesn't listen, and (b) your government is using us as a vassal state in this case, and so we have no authority, or you'll call in the debts of accepting the Marshall Plan or somesuch.

Samnmax221
12-31-2006, 09:02 PM
then European states can probably do the same - and are doing it through the EU, but in a slow and peaceful manner.
Not mentioning the unnecessary regulations and criminal bureaucracy.

stoffe
12-31-2006, 09:03 PM
Mod note: Friendly reminder to everyone - attack the argument, not the person, even when the discussion gets a bit heated. More enjoyable for everyone that way, and it keeps the thread from derailing.

Negative Sun
12-31-2006, 09:05 PM
Not mentioning the unnecessary regulations and criminal bureaucracy.
Check and mate I believe...

Master Demonius
12-31-2006, 09:07 PM
This is the first I've heard of this version. Can you name at least one case, when the world complained about America not attacking a country?
i can name 2 WW1 and WW2

Totenkopf
12-31-2006, 09:07 PM
Yes, Igy, but....the EU is but one corner of the world. So, should it somehow become "one", you still have to get the "second" nation on board. Strength in numbers I suppose. The world is more likely to remain fractious than unite. Also, you forget that as long as the US is strong, the EU may decide it needs the US's help on things and.......damn it just gets complicated. I don't believe you can unite the entire world against America any more than you could against the EU or PRC. All nations have their own agendas. The only thing likely to change that is a global threat that is immediate in nature (alien invasion, asteroid impact, etc...), but even then, such unity would probably disolve w/in a generation. The only ones who seem to have a plan for world unity are the so called "illumanati" (if you believe in them). Even that calls for something like 90% of humanity to be killed off in a short period of time.

igyman
12-31-2006, 09:10 PM
i can name 2 WW1 and WW2
I was thinking something along the line of in the last 15-20 years and something that's not completely different from the Iraq situation.

Not mentioning the unnecessary regulations and criminal bureaucracy.
Unnecessary regulations? Such as? As for criminal bureaucracy, I'm thinking they borrowed a page from USA's book.

Negative Sun
12-31-2006, 09:17 PM
OK. How about the fact that you can be extradited without even prima faciae evidence being presented?
Is that so? I'll keep it in mind...

Mmmm...nope. Since the government is representative of the nation, it seems safe to assume that the national statistics have some implication upon the legislature.
Fair enough, but I don't really think Bush is representative of the nation, since he cheated his way into office...

Why? What's to stop him? What benefit is there in us as an independent nation/nations that wouldn't be greater as a 51st State, without most of the problems?
1) There is no practical use for Scotland or the UK to the US, we have no oil or other resources of that genre... 2) The UK is no pushover and in an alliance with NATO and the EU, the US would have the whole world against them in the end...

I fail to see the correlation. I somehow suspect he hasn't invaded Iran or Korea because even he can see that would bring everything tumbling down around him.
Exactly, plus, he needs to finish in Iraq first...Starting wars on two fronts in the world? Even Bush isn't that stupid (I hope)

I'm saying that there are cultures infinitely superior in the history of the world on which our current society could and perhaps should have been founded. There is also a certain degree of professional bias in this, I should point out, though.
Which cultures, for example? And what is you professional bias exactly?

There myths are little more than proto-Neighbours - it's all who slept with whom, and so-and-so getting revenge for the murder of their father...And if you had read them in the original, I'm not sure you'd agree. They are horrendously stale.
Fair enough, but I still think they are quite interesting and are a good insight into their culture...

And most of their buildings are almost totally ruined. It is reasonably aesthetically pleasing, but it can also be overbearing and dull, and for the most part, modern architecture is recovering from New Brutalism still, IMO...
Good point

My point was that they were not the positive force you were saying they were.
Point taken

Fine. Another thread perhaps?
Sure

You'd prefer to be killed by insurgents? I'm not claiming either is better, just pointing out that neither situation is particularly good.
Not really, that's why I called it a Stalemate, both points are equally valid, and we are entitled to our own opinions...

So in effect what has changed?

The country is more disorganised and there are no benefits living there any more - as far as I can see that is all that has changed...
There were benefits to living there before? Like what?

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-31-2006, 09:21 PM
There were benefits to living there before? Like what?I hear the winters there are lovely.

Master Demonius
12-31-2006, 09:22 PM
I was thinking something along the line of in the last 15-20 years and something that's not completely different from the Iraq situation.
you could have been more specific so im sorry for missunderstading

igyman
12-31-2006, 09:29 PM
Fair enough, but I don't really think Bush is representative of the nation, since he cheated his way into office...
Finally! Something we can agree upon. :) Unfortunately, regardless of the way he got into office, he's a representative of the US government.

Master Demonius
12-31-2006, 09:34 PM
i dont know if anyone here knows this but the biggest reason bush sent troops to iraq was revenge plain and simple

Shem
12-31-2006, 09:41 PM
To be perfectly honest from my point of view, I'm glad Saddam is gone. That's all I need to say.

TK-8252
12-31-2006, 09:47 PM
i dont know if anyone here knows this but the biggest reason bush sent troops to iraq was revenge plain and simple

I agree with that. And it's retarded... he took out his revenge on someone who's actually his enemy's enemy.

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-31-2006, 09:48 PM
i dont know if anyone here knows this but the biggest reason bush sent troops to iraq was revenge plain and simple
For what? If I had to pick a single reason for Bush's invasion of Iraq, I'd say it'd be war's ability to distract the public. Here in the U.S, the only thing that can drag the media's attention away from Iraq for half a second is a rich, mildly attractive white girl getting murdered and/or kidnapped; Bush can effectively do whatever the hell he wants now. And he has. In the last few years, Bush has shifted the tax burden from the corporations and "upper crust" of the country to the middle class, given subsidies to massive corporations, and basically ****ed over the country so that he and his buddies can add to their already enormous fortunes.

Master Demonius
12-31-2006, 09:49 PM
sadam put a contract on his dads head

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-31-2006, 09:56 PM
sadam put a contract on his dads head
And what a successful contract it was. H.W. squashed Saddam's army (which was armed with the weapons we gave them) in the first Gulf War, and what's more, Bush is a ****ing puppet. The war in Iraq may have benefited him, however he alone couldn't have orchestrated it or started it. Billions of dollars in corporate profit on the other hand, is one hell of a not-so-personal motivator.

Master Demonius
12-31-2006, 09:59 PM
And what a successful contract it was.
now now no need to be a smart a**

Darth InSidious
12-31-2006, 10:01 PM
Is that so? I'll keep it in mind...
Yep. Hence the Natwest Three row...

Fair enough, but I don't really think Bush is representative of the nation, since he cheated his way into office...

Quite possibly, although the Senate and House of Representatives can't *all* be ch- what do you mean, 'it's based on the Westminster system'?
:xp:

1) There is no practical use for Scotland or the UK to the US, we have no oil or other resources of that genre... 2) The UK is no pushover and in an alliance with NATO and the EU, the US would have the whole world against them in the end...

We have a trillion dollar economy, and I doubt the whole world would rail against the US over the taking of a country which has been damned annoying in the past, and also at one point believed itself to be the world police...

Exactly, plus, he needs to finish in Iraq first...Starting wars on two fronts in the world? Even Bush isn't that stupid (I hope)
Touch wood...

Which cultures, for example? And what is you professional bias exactly?

Pharaonic Egypt. And my bias is because I'm an Egyptologist :)

Fair enough, but I still think they are quite interesting and are a good insight into their culture...

True enough. Just don't by the E.V. Rieu translations...they're pretty dry...

Not really, that's why I called it a Stalemate, both points are equally valid, and we are entitled to our own opinions...

Oh! I see. Yes.

There were benefits to living there before? Like what?
Well, assuming the average number of casualties has remained the same, the fact that there was electricity and running water, electricity was subsidised by the state, there was stability...Admittedly small trade-offs for an amoral and evil regime, but compared to what there is now, some would argue Iraq was better off before...

TK-8252
12-31-2006, 10:01 PM
For what? If I had to pick a single reason for Bush's invasion of Iraq, I'd say it'd be war's ability to distract the public. Here in the U.S, the only thing that can drag the media's attention away from Iraq for half a second is a rich, mildly attractive white girl getting murdered and/or kidnapped; Bush can effectively do whatever the hell he wants now. And he has. In the last few years, Bush has shifted the tax burden from the corporations and "upper crust" of the country to the middle class, given subsidies to massive corporations, and basically ****ed over the country so that he and his buddies can add to their already enormous fortunes.

Really? To be honest, I don't buy all of that. Bush can't do anything, at least not anymore, without getting hounded by the media. And that's how it should have been all along. The true distraction was 9/11, not Iraq. The media did not ask the tough questions before the Iraq War because the public was behind Bush after 9/11. Now that the truth is out, the media is on Bush's case no matter what he does - turning ports over to an Arab company, completely failing in Katrina's aftermath, failing to change course in Iraq, etc. And this is how it should be - the media, I think, is a much better reflection of a country's populace than the country's elected government.

The war in Iraq may have benefited him

Has it really? I don't see how it has. It has cost him a Republican Congress, his popularity, and eventually his legacy.

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-31-2006, 10:22 PM
Really? To be honest, I don't buy all of that. Bush can't do anything, at least not anymore, without getting hounded by the media. And that's how it should have been all along. The true distraction was 9/11, not Iraq. The media did not ask the tough questions before the Iraq War because the public was behind Bush after 9/11. Now that the truth is out, the media is on Bush's case no matter what he does - turning ports over to an Arab company, completely failing in Katrina's aftermath, failing to change course in Iraq, etc. And this is how it should be - the media, I think, is a much better reflection of a country's populace than the country's elected government.
Psh. No one asks him tough questions. Or rather, they do than accept his bull**** responses that merely confuse the issue or change the subject. And, if you think that this Congress is going to be any better, you're hopes will most likely be smashed to bits. No politician here in America that would actually reform the way things are will be elected in the near future. Also, if you think that this is the way journalism should be, you should take a history course that focuses around American journalism. For many years, journalists ignored petty niceties in order to find out the truth for the American public (and to make a name for themselves), they weren't worried about being invited to a Presidential dinner or getting their next interview with a political figure because they didn't accept what they were told as absolute fact. Many people hated journalists, and for good reason - they exposed truths they did not want to hear, and were a bit rude at times. Now, it's all about nice hair, white teeth, and advertising. A good journalist should be hated and feared by politicians or anyone worried about a public scandal.


Has it really? I don't see how it has. It has cost him a Republican Congress, his popularity, and eventually his legacy.
Heh. Legacy? Popularity? Who cares? He certainly doesn't. He's nearing the end of his 2nd term in office. He and his friends have made a ****load of cash and will have to pay an ever-so-slight portion of it in taxes. He's accomplished what he most likely ran for President to get - money.

TK-8252
12-31-2006, 10:28 PM
Now, it's all about nice hair, white teeth, and advertising. A good journalist should be hated and feared by politicians or anyone worried about a public scandal.

Watch Keith Olbermann's show, Countdown. It's on MSNBC every week night at eight. I try to watch it every time it's on, and it's very good. Most shows on MSNBC are pretty good - Hardball, Scarborough Country, Tucker... so I don't see what's to complain about.

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-31-2006, 10:32 PM
Watch Keith Olbermann's show, Countdown. It's on MSNBC every week night at eight. I try to watch it every time it's on, and it's very good. Most shows on MSNBC are pretty good - Hardball, Scarborough Country, Tucker... so I don't see what's to complain about.
I'll stick to the BBC for my televised news, thank you.

Totenkopf
12-31-2006, 10:46 PM
No. No need for personal comments, either.

Slightly. But given that America has effectively treated this country as a vassal and invaded our sovereignty several times in recent memory (the Natwest Three extradition, the Iraq invasion, the 'Yo Blair' incident all spring to mind...), I hardly think I'm being so paranoid.

I was referring to opinions voiced by GodSlayer in previous posts.

Nope. Got no problems with Canada. Wouldn't have any problems with South America if the nations therein were more stable.

No, but partly altruistic ones would be nice to see.

Perhaps. But eventually all despots are de-throned.

Invade? No. But wars can be fought by other means. I call attention to Gazprom.

So you're repeating all our mistakes now! Wonderful!

Mhm. Godwin!
Seriously, WWII was an entirely different kettle of fish. There, the problem was not contained or indeed particularly low-level.

Never did. And sometimes leaving a wound to heal naturally is better than picking at it endlessly.
Well, for the revolution, the 'no taxation' claim was not entirely fair, since, IIRC we were still running at a loss paying for protection for you because you p----- off the natives. But that's a discussion for another thread.

I don't remember an invasion from my own historical studies, or in fact from a quick scan of the Wikipedia history of the US...unless you refer to the Southern Theatre and defeat culminating at Yorktown?

Exactly, because (a) The Labour Party doesn't listen, and (b) your government is using us as a vassal state in this case, and so we have no authority, or you'll call in the debts of accepting the Marshall Plan or somesuch.

Ok, first off, I was being a lit flip, no personal offense intended. Just expressing a little incredulity at your position. However, it's irrelevant as to whether you were making a reply to Godslayer, b/c I was only pointing out your mistake:

Quote:
Originally Posted by GodSlayer
You know, I live in the UK,

Quote: Darth Insidious
No you don't, you're Scottish. I thought it was all vive l'independance with you...No?

Sooo....you're "slightly" paranoid about the US and uneasy about S. America. I'm not sure what you mean by America being paranoid about the UK. Can't say I've often heard anyone express anything really bad about the UK over here, beyond the hoary jokes about British dentistry or comments about your quisine. Frankly, I believe that most Americans, rightly or wrongly, believe that Britain is as close to a friend as we have in Europe. Maybe you could explain exactly what you mean.

As regards Gazprom, are you implying economic "warfare" (as compared to the military kind) as a means of coercion?

Godwin is kind of a throwaway here because the reference is meaningless. Other than to point out the Hitler has somehow been mentioned, it doesn't do anything to invalidate any point. The reason that can be mentioned is because it's such a prime example of what happens when people ignore things in hope that they'll go away. Hitler was merely a looming threat in the 30's, when something could have been done, but wasn't. Time will tell if Santayana's curse proves correct.

Actually, there wasn't really an "us" back then, we were part of "you". But the invasion in question is often referred to as the War of 1812. Britain's impressment gangs ultimately helped push the US toward war with it's former "lord and master". This, apparently, was a war that was unnecessary in the end. The policies that England engaged in which led to the conflict were ended a mere 2 days before the war was declared. Oddly enough, the last battle of the war was fought some months after it had officially ended. Pesky time lags in communication. So, while the US sought to remove Canada from England's control in retaliation (a failed land campaign), it was the British who actually invaded US soil. So, technically, England invaded the US, while the US has still yet to return the favor.

Curious, though, as to what despots have been dethroned without some kind of outside help? Also, about how frequently despots have been deposed from within by the oppressed (and not by a new set of oppressors --think Lenin and company). Not Japan, where the Tokugawa were overthrown with the help of western nations. Obviously not Saddam. Stalin was poisoned, but the machinery of oppression remained in place. The PRC is still ruled by the communist party. Mussolini was only overthrown b/c the Italians were losing. It's kind of hard to find examples of where a people have been able to overthrow their masters without some kind of outside help, directly or not. Don't see how the "wound" in Iraq would have "healed naturally". With the demise of SH (by natural causes), he'd have been succeeded by the next generation of sadists. Unlikely that a thoroughly frightened public would have any more effective at overthrowing them then their father.

As to your whole point about America taking off after England, it's quite fanciful. For that to happen, the UK would first have to be overtaken by radical islam (or some suitably hardcore anti-US group) and then starting messing with the US. Barring that, it's quite bloody unlikely. Besides, despite the UK's storied past, if the US went after the UK for spurious reasons as you seem to imply, much of the world would turn on the US b/c it would be viewed as a betrayal of enormous proportions. If America would turn on the UK, they might say, who WOULDN'T they turn on.

Please explain exactly how your country's sovreignty was "effectively" trampled on in these incidents. Could it just be that your leader's are weak and indecisive? As to altruism, I wasn't implying it never factored in at any point, just that it tends to take a backseat in overall calculations. Foreign aid is part altruism and part politics.

He and his friends have made a ****load of cash and will have to pay an ever-so-slight portion of it in taxes. He's accomplished what he most likely ran for President to get - money.

Well, now that he seems to have his "oil money", he can hang out more with Bubba (with his china cash) after his term ends.

The Source
12-31-2006, 10:56 PM
What people don't know is: There is a hidden war going on within the United States government. Over the past several decades, the United States government has been deeply seeded with corporations and special interest groups. These corporations believe they can control the will of the people. When we first started off, the common educated man could have become president. Now, you have to have deep pockets, do political favors, and sleep with the enemy. Regardless about who you vote for as President, the winner will be loyal to oil, electric, or big buisness. Last year, I took an ethics class and discovered some interesting things. Our government has been standing by while other countries get ahead of us technologically. It turns out that China and Japan are ten to twenty years ahead of the US in internet technologies, environmental concerns, alternative resources, sciences, and mathamatics. On top of that, those countries can do everything cheaper.

Verizon and AT&T are holding us back from fulll implimentation of fiber-optics, which moves a thousand times faster than current connections. Plus it is cheaper. The telecommunication companies have been holding us back for years.

Exxon Model and Shell are refussing to leave oil behind, so they force the government to prolong our need for changes. We are not behind in finding alternative energy sources, we are behind because large corporations don't want us off oil and gas.

According to another source, there was an attempt in copywritting the worfds "Merry Christmas". If someone on the street used the phrase, they could have been sued big money. I think the ACLU stepped in. Poland Springs Water and others are fighting to copywrite the word, "Water".

There is a lot more, but I am afraid it will make you all sick. Lets put it this way: The 2000 Presidential election misshaps were not a fluke.

Keep in mind that the Iraq War served two purposes: 1. Remove a dictator. 2. Fight a war that the corportation wanted us to fight. (Oil) Otherwords, people are dying for big buisness and not for God and country.

Det. Bart Lasiter
12-31-2006, 11:03 PM
Well, now that he seems to have his "oil money", he can hang out more with Bubba (with his china cash) after his term ends.
Please, indulge me, what has he done that hasn't been in his tax-bracket's interests? And given his birthplace in Connecticut, I'd say he'd be hanging out with someone who was cursed with a waspier name than "Bubba".

The Source
12-31-2006, 11:18 PM
I just edited the thread name, so we can still be on track. We can't talk about one without mentioning the other, so I changed the name to reflect our conversations.
Topics: Saddam's Execution & The U.S. Government

Totenkopf
01-01-2007, 01:38 AM
Please, indulge me, what has he done that hasn't been in his tax-bracket's interests? And given his birthplace in Connecticut, I'd say he'd be hanging out with someone who was cursed with a waspier name than "Bubba".


Sorry dude, but what's your point exactly? You were being flip (or perhaps sarcastic/caustic) and I played off of it. So, what's the problem?

Darth InSidious
01-01-2007, 12:26 PM
Ok, first off, I was being a lit flip, no personal offense intended. Just expressing a little incredulity at your position. However, it's irrelevant as to whether you were making a reply to Godslayer, b/c I was only pointing out your mistake:

Quote:
Originally Posted by GodSlayer
You know, I live in the UK,

Quote: Darth Insidious
No you don't, you're Scottish. I thought it was all vive l'independance with you...No?

Yep, just pointing out he advocated Scottish independence, and then claimed to live in the UK...see where I'm going?

Sooo....you're "slightly" paranoid about the US and uneasy about S. America. I'm not sure what you mean by America being paranoid about the UK. Can't say I've often heard anyone express anything really bad about the UK over here, beyond the hoary jokes about British dentistry or comments about your quisine. Frankly, I believe that most Americans, rightly or wrongly, believe that Britain is as close to a friend as we have in Europe. Maybe you could explain exactly what you mean.

So there is no somewhat uncomfortable feeling about a country ruled by a monarch and perhaps a suspicion of our motives? What about the fact that we were ditched from the Joint Intelligence Fighter project IIRC because we were a 'security threat', or the heavy-handed manner in which your foreign minister treated Ernest Bevin? Suez? Is/was there no suspicion at all of our imperialism and empire/imperial past? Of the fact that, as you yourself say, we invaded your country once, you wrested your freedom from us?
Are you saying there is no lingering mistrust in your halls of power or your national consciousness?

As regards Gazprom, are you implying economic "warfare" (as compared to the military kind) as a means of coercion?

Not implying, stating.

Godwin is kind of a throwaway here because the reference is meaningless.

Yep. It was a joke.
Other than to point out the Hitler has somehow been mentioned, it doesn't do anything to invalidate any point. The reason that can be mentioned is because it's such a prime example of what happens when people ignore things in hope that they'll go away. Hitler was merely a looming threat in the 30's, when something could have been done, but wasn't. Time will tell if Santayana's curse proves correct.

It's a moot point, though, since Hitler was a direct threat, whereas Hussein was not.

Actually, there wasn't really an "us" back then, we were part of "you". But the invasion in question is often referred to as the War of 1812. Britain's impressment gangs ultimately helped push the US toward war with it's former "lord and master". This, apparently, was a war that was unnecessary in the end. The policies that England engaged in which led to the conflict were ended a mere 2 days before the war was declared. Oddly enough, the last battle of the war was fought some months after it had officially ended. Pesky time lags in communication. So, while the US sought to remove Canada from England's control in retaliation (a failed land campaign), it was the British who actually invaded US soil. So, technically, England invaded the US, while the US has still yet to return the favor.

You were the ones who declared war...

Curious, though, as to what despots have been dethroned without some kind of outside help? Also, about how frequently despots have been deposed from within by the oppressed (and not by a new set of oppressors --think Lenin and company). Not Japan, where the Tokugawa were overthrown with the help of western nations. Obviously not Saddam. Stalin was poisoned, but the machinery of oppression remained in place.

It collapsed on it's own in the late '80's/early 90's, though.

The PRC is still ruled by the communist party. Mussolini was only overthrown b/c the Italians were losing. It's kind of hard to find examples of where a people have been able to overthrow their masters without some kind of outside help, directly or not. Don't see how the "wound" in Iraq would have "healed naturally". With the demise of SH (by natural causes), he'd have been succeeded by the next generation of sadists. Unlikely that a thoroughly frightened public would have any more effective at overthrowing them then their father.
Point, but rushing into a military invasion without proper planning or perhaps requesting advice of those who have knowledge of these situations was not terribly wise, and now you know why we *hadn't* gone rushing in and sorted out, to take an example, Iraq.

As to your whole point about America taking off after England, it's quite fanciful. For that to happen, the UK would first have to be overtaken by radical islam (or some suitably hardcore anti-US group)

Define 'hard-core anti-US group'. It would seem to me that saying 'no, sod off' to your country counts as being hardcore and anti-US to your government.

and then starting messing with the US.

Define 'messing'.

Barring that, it's quite bloody unlikely. Besides, despite the UK's storied past, if the US went after the UK for spurious reasons as you seem to imply, much of the world would turn on the US b/c it would be viewed as a betrayal of enormous proportions. If America would turn on the UK, they might say, who WOULDN'T they turn on.

Czechoslovakia, 1938/'39.

Please explain exactly how your country's sovreignty was "effectively" trampled on in these incidents.

Maybe because your government kidnapped people from my country without so much as a by-your-leave, or the simple good grace to provide prima faciae evidence, that your government didn't have the simple honesty to make the latest extradition treaty unilateral, the fact that your president calls the shots for our PM? Oh, no, those would be *ridiculous* examples.

Could it just be that your leader's are weak and indecisive?

In part, but is it not also indicative that yours are corrupt, amoral bastards?

As to altruism, I wasn't implying it never factored in at any point, just that it tends to take a backseat in overall calculations. Foreign aid is part altruism and part politics.

If it's there at all, I'd be surprised.

Negative Sun
01-01-2007, 01:53 PM
Yep. Hence the Natwest Three row...
Lol, I don't think I'm quite in their league yet though...

Quite possibly, although the Senate and House of Representatives can't *all* be ch- what do you mean, 'it's based on the Westminster system'?
:xp:
Touche

We have a trillion dollar economy, and I doubt the whole world would rail against the US over the taking of a country which has been damned annoying in the past, and also at one point believed itself to be the world police...
Good point, but I still don't think the world would stand idly by while the US tries to invade the UK, no matter how annoying the UK might have been in the past, it's still protected by NATO and the EU and all that, the other countries would have to see it as a huge act of treason and aid the UK accordingly...

Pharaonic Egypt. And my bias is because I'm an Egyptologist :)
Fair enough, I agree with that, Ancient Egypt is indeed better than the Roman and Greek Empires, and it is a shame it's influence didn't go as far as the others did...

True enough. Just don't by the E.V. Rieu translations...they're pretty dry...
OK...

Well, assuming the average number of casualties has remained the same, the fact that there was electricity and running water, electricity was subsidised by the state, there was stability...Admittedly small trade-offs for an amoral and evil regime, but compared to what there is now, some would argue Iraq was better off before...
Some would indeed say that, but again, because the war has happened, there is no way of knowing what WOULD have happened had Saddam stayed in power, so yet again it is down to opinion...

Yep, just pointing out he advocated Scottish independence, and then claimed to live in the UK...see where I'm going?
Yeah, but the UK is still a fact though, no matter how much I or anyone else would like to change that, we still depend on those windbags at Westminster...

Ctrl Alt Del
01-01-2007, 06:54 PM
i dont know if anyone here knows this but the biggest reason bush sent troops to iraq was revenge plain and simple

Anyway, wants to see a point of view from outside US and EU? The reason for invading Iraq was... oil, plain and simple. I still remember before the war, the United Nations (an entite that has lost all of its credibility under late Annan's rule) had all evidences that proved that Iraq did not have any ICBMs or whatever, and any involvement with the terror.

Even then, the US refused to accept truth, and proceeded on an operation that would end Iraqs governemment in a few days, but bond US and the Middle East even more

True, even if the project is still crawling, I thank God for our new bio-fuel.

TK-8252
01-01-2007, 07:22 PM
I see no evidence that the invasion of Iraq was simply about oil. While it may have played a role in the lead-up to the invasion ("oil would pay for the war"), the neocons have been pushing for regime changes throughout the world, including in Iraq, for a long time now. Bush basically was brainwashed by neocons after 9/11 into thinking that invading Iraq would be "neat," easy, he'd be a big hero, and that it would be revenge for 9/11 - getting back at an Arab leader, since Osama is too hard to get at. Or something.

Ctrl Alt Del
01-02-2007, 11:23 AM
I see no evidence that the invasion of Iraq was simply about oil. While it may have played a role in the lead-up to the invasion ("oil would pay for the war"), the neocons have been pushing for regime changes throughout the world, including in Iraq, for a long time now. Bush basically was brainwashed by neocons after 9/11 into thinking that invading Iraq would be "neat," easy, he'd be a big hero, and that it would be revenge for 9/11 - getting back at an Arab leader, since Osama is too hard to get at. Or something.


That too.

And about the american prescence there, I dont know how the americans must feel, but retreating from Iraq now would be, at least, irresponsibilty. I mean, they invaded a stable country (ruthless, maybe, but at least there was order there), took out a ditactorial government, messed up the entire region, and now they wanna return home? I dont think this is reasonable, not at all.

Jeff
01-02-2007, 12:03 PM
I'm glad he's gone, but I'd rather see him in some high-security prison to rot the rest of his life.

Darth InSidious
01-02-2007, 01:21 PM
Lol, I don't think I'm quite in their league yet though...
True, but the principle still remains...Other interesting bits of US law to watch out for include, as I recall, that an American citizen can call in an air-strike on their location, wherever they are...

Good point, but I still don't think the world would stand idly by while the US tries to invade the UK, no matter how annoying the UK might have been in the past, it's still protected by NATO and the EU and all that,

NATO might cause a small pause for thought, but the EU is too corrupt, slow, fat and cumbersome to have any real effect.

the other countries would have to see it as a huge act of treason and aid the UK accordingly...

Sorry, but I place less faith in human nature than you.

Fair enough, I agree with that, Ancient Egypt is indeed better than the Roman and Greek Empires, and it is a shame it's influence didn't go as far as the others did...

It was partly their own fault. They weren't really that interested in the rest of the world provided the tribute from their Empire kept flowing in...

Some would indeed say that, but again, because the war has happened, there is no way of knowing what WOULD have happened had Saddam stayed in power, so yet again it is down to opinion...

True.

Yeah, but the UK is still a fact though, no matter how much I or anyone else would like to change that, we still depend on those windbags at Westminster...
Indeed...OTOH, are the windbags in Edinburgh that different?

lukeiamyourdad
01-02-2007, 04:49 PM
It's quite late for me to enter the debate, so I will not specifically quote anyone. It would serve no real purpose in expressing my point.

First off, the issue of the US "World Police" and the EU "sitting on its butt". It's fun and all, but all both parties do is place blame on each other while nothing constructive is being done. One side says it can't fix everything, the other repeats the same speech. One side says it doesn't have enough resources, the other says the same thing. Odd eh? A very nice vicious circle. By the way, if Americans hate to be referred to as a unified homogeneous block, why talk like if Europe was? That is all.

Second, placing blame on the American people. Though somewhat unfair to the ones getting the blame, to outsiders, seeing as the people elect their leaders in a democracy, they become imputable with the actions of the government. That's what it looks like to outsiders. Not saying it's the right way or the wrong way of seeing it, it just is how it's seen.

Now, on to best civilization. Seriously kids, don't try to discuss this. All civilizations have good things and bad things. There's no "perfect" one. At least, not everyone will agree with you. And that's the problem. As for the Roman Republic, I need to remind everyone that, according to historians, it ceased to exist when Julius Caesar became imperator. Some say Augustus was the first Emperor but it doesn't matter, the system disappeared. Although on paper and in roman minds it still subsisted, in fact, it didn't.

Next in order, Iraqi better off with Saddam. Hard to debate and a philosophical question. Is it better to have peace without freedom then unrest with freedom? After all, in Hobbes' State of Nature, men was 100% free and because of that, anarchy resulted. Westerners cannot live without "freedom". It's a western-centric vision to assume that everyone else thinks the same. In fact, it is very possible to live without freedom. Is live less enjoyable? There is no answer all can agree on or at least one that could gather a global consensus.

Next, legitimacy. Someone mentioned Saddam not having been elected and by such force he was an illegitimate ruler. How so? In a democracy, yes, elections give legitimacy to a government. It goes back to western-centric vision claiming that everything exists in one unique way. What is wrong and what is right is dictated by the West. Legitimacy stems from many sources: by arms (Saddam), by God (think old absolute monarchy), by society's will (democracy or simple consensus), etc. Thailand is a very interesting example for this. Everyone remembers the putsch last autumn? Why did the people accept it? Why did a democracy accept an undemocratic act? Because the king said so. The king is the legitimate ruler of Thailand and is accepted and respected by the vast majority of the populace. It gave the putsch its legitimacy. It becomes debatable then when someone claims anyone as a legitimate ruler. Legitimacy is generally lost when the people decide to depose the ruler. Call it democracy if you want, but it could always be social consensus. And that's not exactly the "will of the people" either.

Lastly, "doing something before it's too late". Who are our Nostradamus wannabees here? This preventive strike philosophy is idiotic. How can anyone predict what someone else is going to do? How can one be sure that what he is doing is the "right" thing? Even if your intentions were noble, if the result is a bad one, did you do the "right" thing?

That's all I can think about for now. The rest, in my eyes, seems like a big amount of futile discussion and debate.

TK-8252
01-02-2007, 04:54 PM
Second, placing blame on the American people. Though somewhat unfair to the ones getting the blame, to outsiders, seeing as the people elect their leaders in a democracy, they become imputable with the actions of the government. That's what it looks like to outsiders. Not saying it's the right way or the wrong way of seeing it, it just is how it's seen.

Well to be fair, we didn't directly elect Bush in 2000. Al Gore won the popular vote. Bush was imposed on us by our own government.

Jae Onasi
01-02-2007, 05:45 PM
Well to be fair, we didn't directly elect Bush in 2000. Al Gore won the popular vote. Bush was imposed on us by our own government.

[Civics lesson]
Bush won the electoral vote (http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html), even though Gore won the popular vote. Bush won narrowly in many of the states that had the most electoral votes and lost big in some of the states where there were far fewer electors, and that made all the difference.

Presidents actually are not elected by the popular vote, they're elected by the electoral vote. So, technically _no_ President is ever 'directly' elected by popular vote, though the winner of both the popular and electoral votes almost always is the same. Changing or eliminating the electoral system would require changing the Constitution (something you can always ask your legislators about). Those of us who voted for Gore weren't too happy with how it all played out, but Bush's election was legal. We have to abide by the Constitution, even if we don't like how it works out sometimes. If it's a really bad law, then we need to work to amend it. If we try to arbitrarily ignore it, however, it'll become a worthless document. I'd rather not spurn the Constitution for just 1 person who's going to sit in the hot seat for only 4 or 8 years out of our entire history. The US and the Constitution are bigger than just the President. :)
[/Civics Lesson]

TK-8252
01-02-2007, 05:50 PM
hose of us who voted for Gore weren't too happy with how it all played out, but Bush's election was legal.

Certainly it was legal, but not democratic. The people chose Al Gore, not Bush. Yet Bush took office.

Titanius Anglesmith
01-02-2007, 05:53 PM
To the best of my memory, there was quite a bit of proven voter fraud going on, especially down there in Florida where ol' Jeb is in charge.

Jae Onasi
01-02-2007, 06:16 PM
Certainly it was legal, but not democratic. The people chose Al Gore, not Bush. Yet Bush took office.

Yes, but the Constitution states it's the _electors_, who are chosen by the popular vote within that state, who choose the president, not the voters directly. The voters cast their ballots, and the winner of the popular vote in that state determines whose electors get to vote for the President. So in Wisconsin, if Gore won the popular vote, all of the electors from Wisconsin, not just some, would vote for Gore when the Electoral College convened to select the President. Usually it works out that the winner of the popular vote is also the winner of the electoral vote. 2000 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2000) was an aberration. Gore won big in some states and lost narrowly in others. Unfortunately, he lost narrowly in states with a lot of electors, like Texas, Ohio, and Florida. The electoral votes don't follow the election results nationwide, they follow who wins the election in that particular state. Since Bush got a few more votes in FL, he won _all_ the electoral votes, not the proportional amount. If he had won proportional electors in all states, Gore would have been President. However, the electoral system doesn't work that way. The winner of each state gets (usually) all those electoral votes.

The electors were chosen democratically, and the Constitution was ratified democratically, and the election, whether we like it or not (and I certainly didn't), was democratic. The Electoral system can be changed democratically via amendment of the Constitution.

If Gore had taken the Presidency, he would have done so in violation of the Constitution. Not a great way to start a Presidency. I wanted Gore as President, but not at the expense of our own laws.

@EagerWeasel--'ol Jeb can try, but he can never come close to touching the Democratic machine in Chicago, where the concept of 'vote early, and vote often' is still (unoffically, of course) in effect. If Gore had won IL by a narrow margin, you can bet the GOP would have been investigating (and finding) tremendous voter fraud. There's fraud happening on both sides, and it needs to be cleaned up on both sides.

Totenkopf
01-02-2007, 09:14 PM
Yeah, and where vote often didn't end at the coffin. :p Funny thing that. But seriously, the US has not been and is not a democracy. It's a democratic republic. That's a slight but significant difference. Also, it isn't the first time that a president has "lost" the popular vote, but won anyway.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------


"Yep, just pointing out he advocated Scottish independence, and then claimed to live in the UK...see where I'm going?"

Guess it might have made more sense had he said he WANTED to live in the UK.


"So there is no somewhat uncomfortable feeling about a country ruled by a monarch and perhaps a suspicion of our motives? What about the fact that we were ditched from the Joint Intelligence Fighter project IIRC because we were a 'security threat', or the heavy-handed manner in which your foreign minister treated Ernest Bevin? Suez? Is/was there no suspicion at all of our imperialism and empire/imperial past? Of the fact that, as you yourself say, we invaded your country once, you wrested your freedom from us? Are you saying there is no lingering mistrust in your halls of power or your national consciousness?"

I don't think anyone could claim that everyone in power (in any country, really) would completely trust even their own allies. All nations routinely commit espionage (both commercial and military) against each other, allies or not. Lord Palmerston noted in the 19th century that nations have no permanent friends, only interests. Your own history is proof of that. Not only have your relations with the US flipped from bad to (generally good), but the totality of your relations with France or even Russia have been marked with periods of alliance and hostility. As to Bevin and Suez, that most likely had to due with the new paradigm of cold war realities and what appear to have been reactions to how Bevin conducted himself with regards to the whole Zionist question.

This might sound cynical or cruel to you, but aside from the UK's nuke capability, it doesn't present a physical threat to the US. Though you may have a $trillion+ economy at present, the US would be better set to turn on Canada (proximity) for its natural resources than try to invade England (which you seemed to be suggesting) if we wanted to just start taking over the world. Unless things change dramatically in the near future, the UK is primarily the land of "quaint/charming accents" and the home of the Royal Family and James Bond to the average American. Possibly even much of the world.


"It's a moot point, though, since Hitler was a direct threat, whereas Hussein was not."

Sorry, but that's a little too convenient. Hitler was an unrecognized threat well into the mid30s. Hitler didn't become a direct threat, technically, till 1939.


"You were the ones who declared war..."

Perhaps, but you were the ones behaving in a heavy handed manner, much like what you accuse the US of today. In an eerily similiar circumstance. The Natwest three were extradited by the US, but then many American sailors were forcibly shanghaied by the Royal Navy without any type of due process either. Bad karma I suppose.


"It collapsed on it's own in the late '80's/early 90's, though."

Yes, but not all of its own accord. The 80's/early 90s were the Reagan years and the accelerated defense buildup helped convince ole Gorby that the USSR just couldn't compete without reform (or so he believed). It didn't happen in a vacuum.


"Point, but rushing into a military invasion without proper planning or perhaps
requesting advice of those who have knowledge of these situations was not terribly wise, and now you know why we *hadn't* gone rushing in and sorted out, to take an example, Iraq."

It might surprise you, but here we are somewhat in agreement. It's even ironic, in a way, because of the two political parties in this country, it's the dems that push for nation building types of operations, not reps. But then, many would argue in this country that W is a dem in disguise. Regardless, the operation should have been much better planned and executed. Always remember, Mr Murphy has his hands in everything (Murphy's law--anything that can go wrong, will).


"Define 'hard-core anti-US group'. It would seem to me that saying 'no, sod off' to your country counts as being hardcore and anti-US to your government."

Explain, then, why we didn't invade Japan when they kept US cattle out of their market. Why we haven't yet tried to take over Canada despite multiple trade disputes? How about Mexico, Cuba or even more recently, Venezuela? As to messing, that would probably constitute government support of enemy activities (terrorist or other in nature) against the US. Muslim fundies would be one type, any others would in essence be parties that sought to put England in direct conflict (terrorist/ military) with America. Perhaps England need its own Shintaro Ishihara.


"Czechoslovakia, 1938/'39."

Not sure here if you're saying the US didn't betray Czech in '38/39 or that b/c the UK did, it would be like England getting it's just desserts should the US just "absorb" it.


"Maybe because your government kidnapped people from my country without so much as a by-your-leave, or the simple good grace to provide prima faciae evidence, that your government didn't have the simple honesty to make the latest extradition treaty unilateral, the fact that your president calls the shots for our PM? Oh, no, those would be *ridiculous* examples."

Not sure how you support kidnapped as a description. I've read several articles on this and find nothing to support such a claim. Besides, even your own government admits that it has been easier in the past to extradite someone to Britain than from it. excerpt follows:

In response to the suggestion that a former US ambassador had said that extraditing the Natwest three was a political decision by the government, as the treaty had not yet been ratified by the US senate, the PMOS said, without commenting on the specific details of the case, that was based on a misconception. This misconception was that we had in some way given a unilateral concession to the United States. That was not true. In the past the US had actually faced a higher threshold of evidence when it had sought to extradite people from the UK when compared to the threshold other countries had to cross, or indeed the threshold the UK had to cross when extraditing people from US to the UK.


"In part, but is it not also indicative that yours are corrupt, amoral bastards?"


You mean stronger, corrupt amoral bastards vs weaker ones? ;)


If it's (altruism) there at all, I'd be surprised.

Well, being pretty cynical myself, Id agree that it's never going to be the main ingredient in any policy decision, domestic or foreign.

Jae Onasi
01-02-2007, 11:55 PM
Yeah, and where vote often didn't end at the coffin. :p Funny thing that.
Well, you know, with God and the late Richard J. Daley, all things are possible. :D


But seriously, the US has not been and is not a democracy. It's a democratic republic. That's a slight but significant difference.
Meh, democracy, democratic republic, same difference. :D
US History I was never my favorite class, anyway. In fact, I put it off until my very last semester as an undergrad senior, I disliked it that much. Give me Renaissance history or history of science/medicine any day. Fortunately, I had a fun prof for that class.

Also, it isn't the first time that a president has "lost" the popular vote, but won anyway.The others were in 1876 and 1888.

lukeiamyourdad
01-03-2007, 12:20 PM
Yeah, and where vote often didn't end at the coffin. :p Funny thing that. But seriously, the US has not been and is not a democracy. It's a democratic republic. That's a slight but significant difference. Also, it isn't the first time that a president has "lost" the popular vote, but won anyway.


It's actually very important as no "true" democracy can be found in any modern society bigger then the tribal size.

It simply wasn't viable for large communities. Communist idealists have tried lately such small communities where democracy would reign without a leader. It worked...for a small number of individuals...oddly enough, when the number grew in the thousands, they started getting individualistic and thinking about their own self...you'd think communists...

That's why everyone has a system similar to a republic. So that the state can function without the populace having to vote every single day on all the issues, most that none would care about anyway.

Negative Sun
01-03-2007, 06:09 PM
And if you don't like the way they handle things...a wee revolution here and there never hurt anyone (well it did, but you know what I mean;))



True, but the principle still remains...Other interesting bits of US law to watch out for include, as I recall, that an American citizen can call in an air-strike on their location, wherever they are...
Eh? lol

NATO might cause a small pause for thought, but the EU is too corrupt, slow, fat and cumbersome to have any real effect.
haha, true, but still, they wouldn't get away with it THAT easily...

Sorry, but I place less faith in human nature than you.
Wow, and I thought I was cynical lol

It was partly their own fault. They weren't really that interested in the rest of the world provided the tribute from their Empire kept flowing in...
Yeah, plus that part of the world has kinda been ravaged war only about a million times since lol

Indeed...OTOH, are the windbags in Edinburgh that different?
Touché, but at least they're Scottish windbags, if you get what I mean...

Astrotoy7
01-05-2007, 11:12 AM
lolz @ this thread.

Firstly, everyone should take one of these:
http://www.ovionline.com/Chill-Pill.jpg


Secondly: This thread has become very difficult to follow or contribute to. I work with Iraqi refugee families everyday, yet I feel I have nothing to add to this type of "debate"... I can make one comment though.

Alot of armchair generals and journalists. I'd daresay many of you:

1. Have never met an Iraqi person..
2. Have never met a Muslim, or do not know one closely.
3. Have never met with an Iraqi refugee or victim of torture.
4. Have never been to Iraq, or any Islamic nation.
5. Do not subscribe to nor participate within a charity, volunteer or aid organisation that specifically works with Islamic and/or Iraqi victims of the war.

It's all very good to talk, but I urge you to put your energies and passion into postive action. This arguing is pointless.

1. Join a volunteer organisation, recruit your friends, to work to support Iraqi refugees or citizens, as well as organisations that support the families of killed servicemen from your nation who fell in Iraq
2. Educate yourself and others about Islam and Iraq.
3. Visit a mosque. Visit a local islamic community group.
4. Read the Qu'ran/Koran. Read the Bible again. Notice the similarities ??
5. Speak to an Imam(Islamic clergyman) about Islam, and what you can do to promote education and brotherhood between Muslims and Christians.
6. Speak to a Christian clergyman about Islam and what you can do to promote education and brotherhood between Muslims and Christians.

The above things are *hard* to do, but each and all of them will place you in a better position to make an informed comment on the topic at hand. Unfortunately, CNN, BBC, Rueters etc(The Media in general) is *not* a good place to get your entire education about a subject. Would you visit a doctor who learnt everything from watching ER !(lolz) Sure, watch the news, but enhance this education by trying to connect with and understand the human part of the equation.

peace be with you all

machievelli
01-05-2007, 06:27 PM
I may be a little rash when I say this, but if your feeling is correct, good for Saddam!! We all know Iraq was invaded under false pretenses and we all know it was never a threat to the US. Who knows if Saddam's trial was a real trial.
Don't kill me for this, I am not a supporter of any form of terrorism, but we can't be sure Saddam is one. Not by listening to the US media. Maybe I'm just rambling nonsense, maybe someone knows something I don't, but as far as I remember those supposed mobile weapon factories, or whatever, were never proven to have existed.

First: You are correct that the US had no legal authority to invade and conquer Iraq. (I speak as a student of military and international jurisprudence)

2nd: Whether the court was created thanks to the US interference or not, The crime he was accused of was a crime against humanity. If a man can get away with mass murder just because he hold a political office, then there is no such thing as justice.

3: Saddam may have been linked in a fashion to global Terrorist, but by the same token using the same rules so is the present US government

Was Iraq better under Saddam? Answer: only as Spock said because it was 'one team under one whip'.