quote:
That some believe Saddam was responsible for 9/11 is just knuckleheaded.
I'm not personally pushing that but I wouldn't rule out financial support. Saddam was forking over $20,000 to the families of each Palestinian bomber for killing Israelis, I wonder what the bounty on Americans was.
quote:
It would seem an invasion of Saudi would be more justified.
It would if we could prove that the Saudi gov't were (1) producing WMD or (2) were directly funding terrorists. Just because most of the hijackers happened to be Saudis isn't enough to justify a war, any more than does the fact that Walker-Lindh was a US citizen fighting for the Taliban make 9/11 America's fault. Once people expatriate the original country loses control and responsibility. I would like to see the Saudi govt overthrown and replaced with a democracy. And I would probably support an American invasion to bring that about.
quote:
Would you personally sacrifice your life to oust Saddam?
Yes, if I were over there doing a soldier's work. And if I were in the military, had sworn my loyalty to the President of the United States, and been payed for my service, and I refused to go, I should be courtmartialed for not being willing to. It is a decision military personnel make when they enlist. The US does not have mandatory service laws, it is optional. To die in combat is a real possibility they accept when they walk through the door of the recruitment office. Soldiers, astronauts, test pilots, firefighters, law enforcement; all know that they may die doing their jobs and they do their jobs anyway because it is their role in life. Cops, for example, have rather dangerous jobs. What if they stopped doing their jobs because it wasn't "worth it"? Our laws would no longer be enforced, just as the UN refuses to enforce its mandates. What would life be like then?
quote:
Your children? Your neighbor's children?
Would be accepting that possibility at their enlistment.
And, would I want to sacrifice my children or my neighbor's children by allowing terrorists and dictators to do whatever they please? How many liters of anthrax did Blix admit Saddam might have been hiding? How many grams of anthrax did it take to incapacitate the US Postal Service, evacuate Congress, and kill several people essentially at random? What else was Saddam planning? And how much money was he funneling to terrorists?
In short, I find that the death of servicepeople is acceptable because they went voluntarily (and bravely) and because their sacrifices have been what kept America free since the beginning.
And another thing: it is better that armed and highly trained soldiers face up to the terrorists and dictators of the world on America's terms than helpless children and civilians face them at times and circumstances of their choosing, do you not agree?
quote:
How about another Vietnam?
You know that very idea is ridiculous. But yes, if it were necessary. And you should know that I am very eligible for the draft.
quote:
And after America conquers Iraq, what kind of gov't do you suppose will be set up in a Muslim country ruled by the dictates of the Koran?
A democratic one. You remember how Japan when from theocracy to democracy with American help? Secondly, Iraq was not ruled by the Qur'an, it was ruled by Saddam's barbarous (and secular) regime.
quote:
Indeed, this thing might be bigger than we think and I'm just not too excited about WWIII.
Critics always hold "WWIII" over the heads of hawks who want to try to actually change something. It hasn't happened yet. The war in Iraq is now over. No US cities have been nuked. No draft. No Vietnam. No Third World War. No more torture chambers for the people of Iraq.
quote:
Meanwhile, some see the U.S. as whirling out of control with no legal basis for invading Iraq.
We need lawyers to tell us when we can defend ourselves? We need United Nations authorization to defend the United States? If that is the case, US should withdraw from the UN and expel that body from New York. They can take up anywhere they like, such as Paris or maybe that paragon of human rights and freedom, Libya, who they recently made chair of the UN Committee on Human Rights, shortly after they expelled the US from that body for our "horrid" violations of human rights.
By the way, do you remember Slobadon Milosevic? Let me remind you: he was a dictator that was ousted from Kosovo during the Clinton Administration for flagrant human rights violations. What "legal basis" was there for that little adventure? That's not hypocrisy from the Democrats I smell is it?
quote:
Recall that the U.S. submitted itself to the UN after the Gulf War.
Which was a mistake.
quote:
Why the U.S. didn't require Saddam to leave at that time is beyond me.
It is not beyond me. I know why the US did not drive Saddam out. Bush I was trying to do as he was told by the UN. He fought the Gulf War in accorance with UN Security Council resolutions. UNSC Resolution 678 gave Member States authority to enforce Resolution 660. Bush felt that a full invasion of Iraq would overstep the "authority" given him by the UN. In case you need some reading material:
http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1990/scres90.htm
Fortunately Junior learned from his father's mistake.
quote:
But anyway, the U.S. is not keeping its word when it ignores the Due Process of the UN and acts on its own free will.
The United States is a sovereign nation. It has a right to free will and a right to protect itself without UN support. We are not answerable to the UN nor should we be. I do not recall electing Koffi Annon Secretary-General of the UN. I do not recall electing the French, Russian, or German representatives who blocked disarmament by threatening a veto. And I don't recall reading anywhere in the Constitution of the United States any reference to this sovereign nation being held accountable to supranational authority, except God. They have no right to make decisions that affect my own safety from foreign threats. Bush is answerable to the people of the United States and them alone, not a bunch of backstabbing diplomats in the United Nations. As for as I'm concerned, the UN has no authority to decide if America can defend itself. And in 2004 it will be people like me that decide if Bush did the right thing. It won't be Koffi Annon and it won't be Jacques Chirac who go to the polls to make that final analysis.
As for Geneva Convention, if you're an unlawful combatant, you have no rights. In fact it is my personal understanding that our Taliban prisoners could have been summarily executed on the spot as guerillas and it would have been completely legal. For a more scholarly and even-handed discussion than the biased one you found (and anything I'm likely to provide), see here:
http://es.rice.edu/projects/Poli378/s02.pow.html
[This message has been edited by gene90, 04-30-2003]
) and Saddam betrayed the world. This maybe the end of democracy as we know it; Bush & Blair denied the opinion of millions who were against the wall, and Saddam denied the support of those who choose to stood behind him. Shame on all of them.
™ Version 4.2