Wtf??

[BoarSpear]

Cam said it's wrong to control nuclear weapons or deny them to people just because they hate other nations. I was trying to illustrate the idea that denying weapons that could literally end the entire world was a justifiable measure when the owners of said weapons have not only expressed a willingness and desire to use them, but to use them offensively and pre-emptively. Screw anyone's politics - when you start launching nukes at other nations just because you hate their religion or their race, you have just involved the rest of the world, for better or worse.

Nukes, ALL types of WMD really ARE a problem. The solution isnt easy...first and formost the threat isnt going away.

How about an international treaty...Everyone with nukes agrees...if ANYONE uses them on ANYONE else...EVERYONE else NUKES the guy who started the nuking ...dont give me that nationless enemy crap...nukes and their technology can be traced...if parents are legaly responsible for children who acces the parents firearm and does harm, then Nations should be responsible when their nukes are used by madmen

Still, he took more decisive action than anyone else since Reagan had.

...ooohhh that says alot...not...we havent had a decent man as president in a LONG time.

And let's not forget that the entire conflict between Arabs and Israel came not from the US, but from Britain and France dividing the Middle East before WWI even ended. The League of Nations (UN) and Great Britain had more to do with the current situation over there than the US did - they created it in the first place. We may have tried to shape things over there politically, but if the people who have a problem with Israel are to be believed, it's the greatest bait and switch that ever was! Britain and France decide that Israel will be given to the Jews, then divide it between them and the Palestinians in a way that could not have been more ethnically charged (surround one group with the other and hope they get along - see "the Partition Plan" for more details), put it under British mandate, and then pack up and leave because of - get this - a lack of popular support! No shit! So the UN takes over and cocks it up even worse before Israel declares independence. The US stepped in to keep Jews from being rounded up and killed en masse yet again, just after fleeing from the Holocaust, by angry neighbors. The Arab world is largely angry at us for supporting Israel economically, politically, and militarily. They'd rather we just leave them alone to kill of the rest of the Jews and reclaim their land. The way some of you guys talk, you'd rather see it that way too. We should leave, because it's not our problem and our presence creates "tension" in the region. I believe that if the US had its way, we'd have good relations with everyone over there, suporting economies and politics by encouraging trade and democracy. But you can't do that when the leaders of a country want to see entire races of people wiped out. The very last thing you can do is allow them to have nuclear weapons. Besides that, one of the very last things you should do is blame the US for a mess that we didn't create. It's true that we've tried to influence the way countries were run - so does every other government on Earth. But we tried to influence it not to bring war and destruction among the locals, but to quell feuds and improve economies. That it didn't work out that way is unfortunate, but the fact remains that the Arab-Israeli conflict didn't start with the US at all, and our support was not a point of contention until England and the UN had cocked things up so badly that Israel decided to take its chances on its own with the Arabs rather than remain under UN mandate. Read your history books, guys. Maybe then you'll realize that a lot (not all, but a lot) of the more popular sound bites about how the US has created all that tension is the exact same kind of smoke and mirrors we get accused of using.

Hey **** 'em. dont forget i spent 6 months attached to the Israeli Defense Forces in 1983, i stood duty in lebonon and in Isreal itself. It was and is my favorite place on the planet...if it were not for the terrorism/political unrest i would have moved there in the early 80's. That being said, its is a highly contested piece of RELIGIOUSLY important real estate. i decided i didnt want to live in that state of prepardness and didnt move there. If i wasnt willing to die or kill people so I could live there why should i have to get nuked (and we will) so someone else can live there?

It isnt a very big area...I would prefer to move them all to the United states...GIVE them New orleans (or LA period)...let em rebuild that, they can keep it...that might not be ideal, but it would beat the hell out of where this is all headed....Get over the ego and religion before ALOT more people die...this is the beginning of WW3 ....if giving the jews a part of America got them out of the middle east and averted WW3 and removed the issue wouldnt it be worth the sacrifice? Id rather give up some land than lives....guess that disqualifies me for politics.

[jubaji]

How about an international treaty...Everyone with nukes agrees...if ANYONE uses them on ANYONE else...EVERYONE else NUKES the guy who started the nuking .

So, that was one of those 'emotional' rather than 'thought out' type of suggestions I guess.

[jubaji]

...I would prefer to move them all to the United states...GIVE them New orleans (or LA period)...let em rebuild that, they can keep it...that might not be ideal, but it would beat the hell out of where this is all headed....Get over the ego and religion before ALOT more people die...this is the beginning of WW3 ....if giving the jews a part of America got them out of the middle east and averted WW3 and removed the issue wouldnt it be worth the sacrifice?

See previous comments...

[cam427]

I didn't expect Saddam to lead the charge, but at least Bush shows up to brief the people, to set the objectives, and to actually occupy his assigned office. Saddam didn't even hang around to act like a leader. He ran and hid.

I dont think Bush would be standing around giving speaches if there was a good chance he would be killed if his location was known as was the case with Saddam.

It's not at all the same argument. I don't necessarily agree with the treatment of enemy combatants at Gitmo, but Saddam's trial is entirely different. He is not even being held for anything he did to the US. He's not on trial for the crimes he committed against UN resolutions. He's not on trial for attempting to assassinate Bush Sr. He's on trial for what he did to the Iraqi people. He is being held under specific charges (not the case in the Gitmo cases you mention) and scheduled to defend himself in court (also not a Gitmo parallel) under a defined set of laws by an established court (none of these are true with the abuses at Guantanamo). Literally everything about Saddam's detention and trial are different from Guantanamo Bay's prisoners. You don't have to like either of them, but comparing them to make this particular point is off base. Saddam committed crimes against Iraqis. He did so while the Iraqi people looked to him (trusted may be too strong a word) for leadership. He abused his country while he was supposed to be leading it. He raped, looted, and murdered his own people - and not in the euphemistic sense, either. He gassed a whole race of Iraqis because they stood to be a political threat. He drained the wetland homes of another race of Iraqis, chasing them out or killing them. Admit it or don't, he had weapons of mass destruction - that's fact, not failed intelligence or propaganda. He had them, and we know he had them for many reasons already stated in other posts - most obviously because he used them on the Kurds. What's more is, since all of this has to do with the Iraqi people, in the Iraqi courts, under Iraqi law, for crimes committed against Iraqis, I simply don't think any American lawyer is qualified to represent Saddam. Not even a former Attorney General. He can be a master of American Law, but that doesn't make him any good at Iraqi law. The systems are different. Best case, they allow it and he makes a strong emotional (but legally unfounded) argument and Saddam's trial is called a mistrial because his representation didn't know the laws and was not authorized by the Iraqi court to practice Iraqi law. Worst case, they overlook all of that, and a political figure who's been a friend to America's enemies since the Johnson administration gets a dictator off the hook for mass murder, arms dealing, and the rape of his own people.

I accept that you are correct on this point. While the treatment of people who have not been charged with any crime is despicable it is very different than Saddams legal situation.

I talk to Iraqis nearly every day at work. They all say the same thing, Cam. They think that what America did for them was great, and they are thankful. The ones who are impatient with the American presence right now mostly just want America to leave and allow them to run their new country on their own. The people who are making statements like the one you mentioned are very simply scared that Saddam will return to power, and having seen the killings and torture Saddam inflicted on his people before, don't want to be on his "bad side" if that turns out to be the case.

I agree that most Iraqis were happy to see the end of Saddams regime but the current situation is worse (hopefully temporarily) than it was for many people. I bet the people you are talking to are currently living in the US. It is very easy to be happy when you are living in comfort and dont see the every day reality if Iraqi life.

At the end of the day, America is in Iraq for the Iraqis. That may or may not be the high-end political goal of the war, but it's what we soldiers were/are there for. If Iraq asks us to leave, we will leave - that is evidenced by the recent change in White House messages to the press. I think Bush would do well to persuade the Iraqi government to keep us there until things truly settle down, but that's me. As far as Saddam's attorney being American, here, in a nutshell, is the problem.

I agree that the soldiers feel they are in Iraq for the Iraqis but that is not the reason they are there politically.

Imagine Australia had been fighting with a nation for years, and the nation's leader was the kind of guy Saddam is. Imagine that during the war, this leader tried to assasinate John Howard. After your military finds and captures the bastard, Your own Attorney General, Philip Ruddock makes a big political stink and heads over to represent the bad guy. Can you honestly not see how that might feel like a slap in the face? It's very nearly traitorous, at least in my eyes. It's not as if he's assigned to defend the accused in an American court - he voluntarily went to an Iraqi court to defend the actions of a tyrant in front of the very people we've been dying to liberate. One last point:

I would be really annoyed if this hapenned but it would be because I was being patriotic rather than objective. The best thing for all is for Saddam to have a fair trial before they execute him .

Iran made Iran evil when they declared that their aim was to wipe an entire people off the map. Does genocide not qualify as evil to you? If it doesn't, please, Cam, never go into judicial work. You'd be the most lenient judge in history. "Please rise. I am overturning the jury's finding of 'guilty' because the accused only killed a few dozen people. That's not really so bad, is it people?" When a nation's leader makes it publicly known that his administration's policy is not "war" with another country, but the complete and unprejudiced wiping of their entire existence off the map, I'd say that nation has pretty much settled where it sits on the whole good/evil spectrum. If the people in Iran recognize this and stand up against such insane ideas, then no problem. But the first time a nuke flies at Israel, all bets are off. nukes are bad for the whole world, my friend, and it doesn't matter who has them - we're all affected. It's no longer about politics, borders, or religion when nukes are involved. It's about defending a global neighborhood that we, as yet, can't move out of. Again, if you can't see the potential harm in a country like Iran (under its current leadership) having nukes, then you'll never see any other point anyone tries to make in this debate. Think about your own country. If you have a guy roaming the streets who's killed some people and been to jail, and he whips out a gun, sights down the barrel and says, "I'm going to kill everyone wearing blue jeans and wipe them from the earth!" do you have the right to take his gun away?

Iran makes all sorts of statements that sound crazy but if you look at the current situation in Iran you will see that most Iranians want to get back to the happy democratic society they had before the US screwed it up. The current Prime Minister is trying to introduce many more freedoms into everyday life but the process is slow because the religious leaders have the final say on all laws and will not allow any changes that will weaken their power base.

India and Pakistan (a muslim country) also do this kind of crazy posturing. Both have nukes but nobody uses them. At the end of the day the people with all the power control the nukes and they have too much to lose. How many suicide bombers have you heard of that were billionaires that came from the upper echelons of power.

Cam

[BoarSpear]

So, that was one of those 'emotional' rather than 'thought out' type of suggestions I guess.

How so buttercup? Ever heard of Mutual Assured Destruction?...If people start slinging nukes, we are ALL going to suffer the consequences anyway...so make it perfectly clear if it begins, the rest of the world will GUARENTEE nothing but roaches can survive on your lands for a very long time...

It will certainly stop support from nations for terrorist who try to acess them...it might actually cause people to police their own...

[BoarSpear]

See previous comments...

whats wrong with admitting they shouldnt have been put there in the place? move them out...anyone who stays does so WITHOUT our aid and military backing...it isnt ideal....La was an example, it might take some MAJOR changes...
and it doesnt fit the current world plan, but its a way better option than the radioactive wasteland in our future.

[BoarSpear]

whats wrong with admitting they shouldnt have been put there in the place? move them out...anyone who stays does so WITHOUT our aid and military backing...it isnt ideal....La was an example, it might take some MAJOR changes...
and it doesnt fit the current world plan, but its a way better option than the radioactive wasteland in our future.

sorry my idea isnt as well thought out and workable as say when the current administration suggested plastic sheeting and duct tape to safe our houses from CB weapons attacks

[jubaji]

How so buttercup? Ever heard of Mutual Assured Destruction?...If people start slinging nukes, we are ALL going to suffer the consequences anyway...so make it perfectly clear if it begins, the rest of the world will GUARENTEE nothing but roaches can survive on your lands for a very long time......

.........I.........see............So, you really, seriously think that is a viable idea?

I know you like drugs and all that, but clear your head for five minutes.

[jubaji]

whats wrong with admitting they shouldnt have been put there in the place? move them out...anyone who stays does so WITHOUT our aid and military backing...it isnt ideal....La was an example, it might take some MAJOR changes....

See previous comments. Immediately!

[BoarSpear]

.........I.........see............So, you really, seriously think that is a viable idea?

I know you like drugs and all that, but clear your head for five minutes.

give me a better suggestion....you like to make fun of mine...whats your idea?... i suppose you think we should just continue to erode the constitution and turn into a big police state ...and still get nuked for it....

[jubaji]

give me a better suggestion....you like to make fun of mine...whats your idea?... i suppose you think we should just continue to erode the constitution and turn into a big police state ...and still get nuked for it....

Your brilliance notwithstanding, don't you think that part of the reason that a simple solution hasn't been settled on yet just might have something to do with the fact that these are not simple problems we face?

Lay off the weed.



As for the rest of your banal mountain militiaman hideout blather....*yawn*

[treelizard]

give me a better suggestion....

Here's one. Crush the Arab revolt by any means necessary. Forcibly remove all Arabs who aren't willing to accept the exclusive sovereignty of the Jewish people over their land of Israel.

[BoarSpear]

Here's one. Crush the Arab revolt by any means necessary. Forcibly remove all Arabs who aren't willing to accept the exclusive sovereignty of the Jewish people over their land of Israel.

yeah thats been working REAL well so far ...go ahead and say it...kill them all, let god sort them out...thats what you just said....so genocide is the answer to the problem huh? Yeah and i need to lay off the weed

[shaolin-warrior]

I have to agree with Boar on this, Having been a part of the machine it's hard to admit. But the only country with WMD'S that has used them on enemies not once but twice and escaped criminal war crime prosecution is the US.

[jubaji]

Yeah and i need to lay off the weed

I see my message is getting through!