Legion World Forums LEGION COMPANION The Anywhere Machine Saddam Hussein Captured!

It's a promo for Chris Claremont's upcoming Dark Santa story... :rolleyes:

"Bad Santa," "Dark Santa," Tim Allen's ludicrous "Santa Clause" flicks, and now kids pointing at the TV screen showing a genocidal murderer and asking, "Doesn't Santa have a comb?"

I feel sorry for little kids today. And not only because they'll be paying for Bush's many imperial follies for decades after I'm dead and gone. Because we won't even let them have any touch of a Christmas legend any more.

Imperial follies?

Such as?

Seriously, i'd like to know. Have we colonized russia? Brazil? South Africa?

Oh, wait, i see. In the worlds hotbed of murderous terrorists, we didn't take the always fatally flawed appeasement tack and let a mass murderer keep going. Gosh, how cruel are we.

"Well, we backed him in the 70's against Iran, that means we supported what he did. That means we are evil and must be purged from the world."

Bullshit. It means we did what needed to be done to achieve a goal. Sometimes in doing this you have to make hard decisions. IF you don't have the intestinal fortitude to make them, then maybe YOU shouldn't be in the political arena.

By the way, how are Japan and Germany today? Oh, wait, we don't control those countries even though we conquered, thats right, conquered, them. We set up a government that was definately better for the people of those countries, and then turned the governments back over to the people.

come to think of it, following the arguements that we are imperialists, etc... you might logically conclude that a lot of people here in america actually want tyrants and dictators.

Hmmmm.

Why bother to ask me what I mean, when you have a hundred words to put in my mouth to tell me? You don't appear to actually want discussion.

I used two words. We have been making this government, for decades, into an imperial power. (Not with its having direct colonies. Other ways exist.) That government has been committing massive follies in doing so. I don't believe either point can be denied, whether one likes what has been done in "our name" or not.

I'm glad when any genocidal cur, such as Hussein, is run to ground. That doesn't mean I necessarily endorse all the steps that were taken to do so, or even any of them. I don't assume that such steps, and the restrictions and injuries done to Americans in the process, were the only way to deal with him.

As to what I would or would not endorse, I'll elaborate on that when I can tell that you actually want discussion.

Not wanting to get into an argument with anyone here but I, myself, would not use the word conquered for those two countries.

We beat back Germany with a multi-national force including the Russians, who without, in my opinion, we would not have succeed. And correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the defacto government set-up there run by the British, Russians and Americans?

As for Japan. Maybe you can say we conquered them but I would chose to say we bombed them into submission.

To me conquer implies we gained the mastery of them, over them. Not quite what we did. I would say we vanquished them.

Again, just my two cents.

And, in the case of Germany and Japan we were reacting to overt offensive moves made against us. I'm still not satisfied that there was an immediate threat to the United States from Iraq. I'm still not convinced that preemptive military action was the only way to get Saddam out of power. And I remain wholly unconvinced that there is any link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. a secularist dictator and fundamentalist insurgents just don't seem like a likely combo.

Lightning lad, those are just polite terms for conquer. That is what you do in war. If war is waged until one side wins, it conquers. Anything else is like when they eliminated war by renaming it the Defense department. Just beautifying the region.

Grey. I never said i didn't want discussion. You used two terms that you did not make exact. I took the literal meaning of them and exposed them as misleading, misdirecting, and wrong.

Now, as to the follies. What are they? Seriously? That people in the middle east wont like us? Not only do some of them already not like us, why should we want to be liked by every single person, government, etc...?

I would rather be respected. And despite what you think, we are respected now. We weren't respected when they bombed embassies, murdered airline passengers, attacked ships and all we did was blow up dirt and asprin factories. It may not be the respect you want, but this is an imperfect world. Yes we are a large country. And only a fool doesn't develop his talents and skills to the best advantage they can. Example... You are being picked on by a bully. You then take an intensive course in self defense to learn how to defend yourself. The bully picks again and you do nothing to resist that. You are the idiot. Because bullies only respect power. They do not respect you crawling on hands and knees and beggin they don't hurt you. And while we are large and work for our interest, every single nation on earth does the same thing. We are not the only ones and to glorify other nations that are not as successful at it is ridiculas.

Being liked by everyone is a childish, immature, and impractical desire that will ensure that no one likes or respects you. I am sure you know bootlicks in life. Obsequious people that seek only to ingratiate. Instead, when around them you feel unclean and like you need to bathe afterwards.

We needed France, Germany, and Russia on board? Newsflash, they were secretly dealing with Saddam Hussien, suppling weapons, money, etc... The documents have been recovered that prove it. We had stopped and tried to rectify our mistakes. What is their excuse?

The UN? New World Order? Tell you what, take a look at all those countries that want to be a part of it. Now, how many of them are run by someone that isn't much better than Hussein was? Quite a few. And for that matter, why the hell should we put ourselves under the rule of someone that has proven they cant rule themselves, much less us? No reason other than misplaced guilt at being a strong nation.

America does more to spread freedom than any other nation, the United Nations, or any organization in the world. But there will always be a portion of any society that is self-loathing. If you cant or wont make the hard decisions, then get out of the way for those that can and do. If you don't or wont make them, you have to live with the consequences of your weakness. But where you see it as a punisment of some sort, others see it as getting the job done.

Best examples: Guns of Navarone and The Virginian. Watch those two movies. Figure out which side you stand on.

{[...] And despite what you think, we are respected now. }

You evidently don't care to hear what I think, because you went on another tear for two hundred words, this time, about what I supposedly am thinking, complete with rhetorical questions. (A handy way of ascribing views to others without bothering to find out if they hold them.)

So I make my conclusion, based on strictly functional observation: You simply don't want discussion.

Sudro, how many more citizens of Iraq had to die, be murdered, tortured, raped, gutted, brutalize before it would have been alright?

1?

10?

1,000,000?

Or maybe a loved one?

I saw more outrage at a dog being gassed on tape than i did at the mass graves? Now, i have dogs, i love my dogs. But that was sick. Humans matter more.

As for direct threat, do you know how close he was to pony nukes? Maybe not as much as people thought. But how bout Sarin, VX? Anthrax? Just a few vials could kill a building full of people. He was told, by the UNITED NATIONS to show that he had disarmed. He refused for 17 resolutions. Let me ask you this, if i got stopped by the cops for speeding and was told to get out of the car with my hands up, and refused, what do you think would happen? Would they call in negotiators? Hmmm, they did that. Ad nausem.

You and i do not know the exact extent of Intel. WE don't. You might read every thing you can get your hands on and you still wouldn't have what the government did.

The office of the President has certain obligations. Certain things must be done. Try reading the oath of office. I says nowhere that the president must have a consensus to do what the country thinks might possibly be necessary at some point in the future. It has specific duties. And the duty lies on the head of one man.

And to use the arguements of the Dems for around thirty years or so, "We have to do whats right for the country, whether we like it or not."

And while Osama and Hussein may seem like unlikely bedfellows, remember, Russian communists and English Monarcists and American republicans (this is a republic) banded together to defeat Fascism and Nazism. Much stranger things have happened.

Well then grey, why don't you shut up with the "you dont wanna hear what i have to think" and actually tell us. straight talk. It that really that hard to do for you?

And yeah, i can talk almost as much as you can.

But you really seem to like the victim role. Martyr much?

As to my tear, i was refuting the arguements i have heard ad nausem in the media. Try to have a little comprehension.

It's simpler than that. I don't appreciate being told that "I believe" something. You've described me as supporting "appeasement," a lack of national "respect," France, Germany, and a general political deficiency in will or machismo -- without my saying one word about such matters.

You don't want discussion, though that's what I prefer. Nothing says we have to have it, either -- use this place as a soapbox all you want. I point out, though, that you are the one who decided to go on for hundreds of words about an aside in my unrelated posting. So calm down, amigo. I'm not going to tell you to shut up.

And yet again you either deliberately misunderstand or simply don't get what i said. And since no one thinks you are stupid, you must be deliberately "not getting it". I said shut up about the "you don't want conversation" and tell what you believe, where you get what you believe, etc... to us straight forward. What do you do? You again say i don't want it and AVOID saying what you actually think, feel, or believe.

Cheap out.

I put my beliefs out there, my "soapbox" if you will. I have the intestinal fortitude to speak against what i perceive to be an injustice. You merely reiterate that i don't wanna hear what you have to say.

Do you believe your position to be so weak or wrong as to be unsupportable?

Waiting for a real response and not an avoidance.

Well, if anyone wants my two cents, we're reaping what we originally sowed. Yes it's true that in the 80's we supported Saddam Hussein and Iraq, if even in the most oblique fashion, because they were at war with Iran and Iran was with the Soviet Union. It's also true that we did so at that time not really caring about Saddam's human rights record one way or the other. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" and all that. At that time, we were in a lot of questionable alliances because of the USSR. Osama bin Laden, anyone?

I think historically speaking, this whole thing will be a post-Cold War footnote. Cleanup, if you will. I do think in many ways, however, we are responsible for both Saddam and Osama, and have a moral obligation to clean up our messes.

Having said that, I also believe the war has been mismanaged by the administration. And the circumstances starting the war and whether our current administration was duplicitous in its "weapons of mass destruction" argument have been argued and argued and argued. I would have preferred the "Saddam is a bad man and he needs to be stopped" argument myself. It would have been more honest. But what's done is done. We have a job to do. We can't leave Iraq the way that it is. We have to get on the move militarily and diplonmatically. We can't do this ourselves. We need the support of the world community, including France and Germany. And in this upcoming election we need to support the man who can best make that happen (no, I don't know who that man is yet, though I don't mind saying that I like Wesley Clark a GREAT deal.)

Incidentally, I don't think what someone may or may not do to you sometime in the future is a compelling argument for war either. I stick to the notion that war should be the very last recourse.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1107892,00,print.html

Can't disagree with that in the slightest.

Now that Saddam is captured, maybe Mr Reagan should take a trip to the Hague for aiding and abetting a known human rights violater in the 80's....

So when does Henry Kissinger go on trial for crimes against humanity? Well, if he steps outside of the boundaries of the United States, he'll be arrested for that in many parts of the world, and with good reason. And Regan should be answerable too, as well as Bush senior. Is Saddam a bastard? Of course! But as long as the US punishes people like Saddam, but ensures that it never has to pay up for it's own crimes, such as the hundreds of thousands killed in Cambodia before Pol Pot even started killing people, and the oppression of resistance movements in South America against dictatorships for fifty years, the rest of the world is going to feel that the US is only interested in creating an American Empire.

There are people in the US gov. who truly believe that a war on terrorism is a noble thing to do right now. But there are definately others in the US gov. that feel a war on terrorism is a chance for the US to assert global hegemony and further take control of the world. These people, Wolfawitz, Chaney and Rumsfeld the foremost among them, have been using 9-11 just like they were using Libyia, Grenada, etc. in the 1980's, as a way to scare the American people into allowing them to do what 'seems' to be right, even though they have a clear alternative agenda.

I don't argue that taking down Saddam Hussein was a great move, but I can clearly understand why the US is hated throughout the whole world.

Rick, you wanted comments and I've given them to you. Like KP, I would prefer that the reasoning for war was simply stated as "getting a terrible dictator out of power" instead of the 'weapons of mass destruction' propaganda used to scare the US people. But I also think that any discussion of American foreign policy in the Middle East must recognize the fact that powerful men in Bush's administration have an alternate agenda.

I think that there are three ways to get others (whether people or countries) to support/cooperate with you, fear, being liked, and respect. My opinion is that the US doesn't currently have the respect of other nations, but their fear.

Respect, for me, means being respectful of others. It means listening to the concerns and opinions of others and considering them in respect to your own interests and concerns. In the end, you still do what you consider the right thing to do, but you also explain your actions in relation to the concerns and interests of the others. In terms of the Iraqi war, the US did not do that. The US Government basically said "This is my ball and here is how we are going to do it!"

And while there may have been legitimate reasons for this war, the Bush government did not use those reasons. Instead they relied upon reasons that, in the most favorable light, proved to be unreliable.

For all those who say that the war was necessary to ensue the safety of the American public, do you really feel safer now?

Another one for reference: http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4804631-103677,00.html

Ah, but then they'd have to go after people like their good friends in Uzbekistan like President Islam Karimov, who have an appaling human rights record, yet since they let the US build a base there, they're "good friends" in "the war on terror," and get $500 million in aid.

Quote from the CIA World Factbook : "Current concerns include ... the curtailment of human rights and democratization. "

From state.gov :

GOVERNMENT AND POLITICAL CONDITIONS
Constitutionally, the Government of Uzbekistan provides for separation of powers, freedom of speech, and representative government. In reality, the executive holds almost all power. The judiciary lacks independence and the legislature, which meets only a few days each year, has little power to shape laws. The president selects and replaces provincial governors. Under terms of a December 1995 referendum, Karimov's first term was extended. Another national referendum was held January 27, 2002 to yet again extend Karimov's term. The referendum passed and Karimov's term was extended by act of the parliament to December 2007. Most international observers refused to participate in the process and did not recognize the results, dismissing them as not meeting basic standards. Also passed in the 2002 referendum was a plan to create a bicameral Parliament. Several political parties have been formed with government approval but have yet to show interest in advocating alternatives to government policy. Similarly, although multiple media outlets (radio, TV, newspaper) have been established, these either remain under government control, or rarely broach political topics. Independent political parties have been denied registration under restrictive registration procedures.

Human Rights
Uzbekistan is not a democracy and does not have a free press. Many opponents of the government have fled, and others have been arrested. The government severely represses those it suspects of Islamic extremism. Some 6,000 suspected extremists are incarcerated, and some are believed to have died over the past several years from prison disease and abuse. With few options for religious instruction, some young Muslims have turn to underground extremist Islamic movements. The police force and the intelligence service use torture as a routine investigation technique.

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/1203/12uzbek.html

Which would also explain their good friend the Shah of Iran (in the sixties and seventies), who also was infamous for his oppressive record. There was a reason why Khomeini came to power so quickly and easily, and why the US was seen as an enemy after all...

SoM, I see that you've studied a lot of the same political history that I have and it appears have a lot of the same political leanings. I have a whole bunch of links, articles and other things that I'd like to post, which you can take a look at too! Of course, I'm at work right now, so I probably shouldn't now

Such as this one: here on Uzbekistan.

Gee Sanity or Madness, Everybody knows that "War is Peace", "Freedom is Slavery" and "Ignorance is Strength"