News You're cheering because Saddam is 'caught' Why?

  • Thread starter Adam
  • Start date
Z

Zero

Originally posted by GENIERE


You seem driven to resort to personal attacks when others offer opposing viewpoints, the archetypical leftist tactic.
That's your tactic too, as I recall...and certainly the official tactic of the Republican Party.
 

FZ+

1,550
2
*Groan* Here we go again...

Greg: can we have a ban on all use of the word leftist/rightist/left wing etc etc? Or maybe extend the profanity filters to cover them....
 
16
0
Adrian Baker

Because he was an evil monster who thought he could get away with it. (He could too when the cold war was ongoing.

I suppose the murder of Thousands of your own people is a good reason to some. A pointless war against Iran that involved a million deaths. The invasion of Kuwait, the burning of oilwells.
Good reasons.

He inspired other ruthless men who realised thet the UN was useless and that they too could do as they wish.
Tell me, why do you think other such people around the world are not being invaded, hunted?

He helped fund middle east terrorism and helped keep the whole area unstable. This has led to countless deaths and refused peace and freedom to millions.
While I have not seen any evidence that he funded terrorism prior to the invasion of Iraq (after which he openly offered money for dead US soldiers), it is true that every nation around Iraq found them a great problem.

Because a democratically elected goverment decided it was the best policy. Some of us believe in democracy. If we don't like what happened, we can vote them out.
The "democratically elected" bit is debatable. As for reasons, this one does not cut it at all. If 51% of people in Nation X decide "It's a great idea to invade Nation Y", that does not necessarily make it so. You're saying the decision is the reason.

Because the Iraqi people deserved better.
Yep. Definitely.

Why Adam do you have to ask?
Curiousity.

Why do you find fault with so many others who give good reasons?
Well, many don't give good reasons.

Would you call the police for help if someone took over your house, killed your family and sold all your possesions? Shouldn't others have that right?
Bush is not the police.
 
16
0
GENIERE

Call them laws, treaties, principles or whatever you want. Nothing is superior to The US Constitution in determining the legality of the activities of its government and citizens.
Oh, I see. You think the US Constitution applies outside the US, to those who are no US citizens. Right. Well, I'll explain it for you. It doesn't. The US constitution is for a specific geographical region, applying to a small number of people and only when within that region. International laws apply to the citizens of all signatory nations, within the regions controlled by those nations, and sometimes outside those regions as well. Get it?
 
Its Pointless (These Personal Attacks)

Adam, I think your're discovering, like me, thats its quite pointless trying to have intellectual and political conversations with the brainwashed. These guys can't seem to think outside their LITTLE square they live in (be it the USA, England or Australia).
I think they truly believe that the USA and its foreign policies are good for the world. Of course, they are wrong, but they are too proud and arrogant to accept input from anybody else.
Unfortunately we are not even in the discussion.
 
G

GENIERE

Adam -
International laws apply to the citizens of all signatory nations, within the regions controlled by those nations, and sometimes outside those regions as well. Get it?
Only if a US citizen’s rights per US Constitution are not diminished.

: "We will take the actions necessary to ensure that our efforts to meet our global security commitments and protect Americans are not impaired by the potential for investigations, inquiry, or prosecution by the International Criminal Court (ICC), whose jurisdiction does not extend to Americans and which we do not accept. We will work together with other nations to avoid complications in our military operations and cooperation, through such mechanisms as multilateral and bilateral agreements that will protect U.S. nationals from the ICC. We will implement fully the American Servicemembers Protection Act, whose provisions are intended to ensure and enhance the protection of U.S. personnel and officials."

(a) AUTHORITY- The President is authorized to use all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any person described in subsection (b) who is being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court.

Clinton National Security Strategy excerpt:

...In some cases, such as Operation Just Cause in Panama, we may intervene unilaterally to protect our interests.

Bush (2) National Security Strategy excerpt:

...And, as a matter of common sense and self-defense, America will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed.
 

Hurkyl

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,847
14
Pot to kettle

Adam, I think your're discovering, like me, thats its quite pointless trying to have intellectual and political conversations with the brainwashed.
...
 
248
0
Originally posted by GENIERE
...And, as a matter of common sense and self-defense, America will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed.
Just out of curiosity: do you think that other nations should do this too? For example, should Pakistan invade India, before the threat is fully formed? Or what about North Korea nuking the USA before the 35000+ US soldiers stationed near the DMZ decide to cross over into the North? [?]
 

Njorl

Science Advisor
245
8
Originally posted by suyver
Just out of curiosity: do you think that other nations should do this too? For example, should Pakistan invade India, before the threat is fully formed? Or what about North Korea nuking the USA before the 35000+ US soldiers stationed near the DMZ decide to cross over into the North? [?]
Nations should also act in their own best interest. In either case, the actions you mentioned would be suicidal.

Njorl
 
248
0
Originally posted by Njorl
Nations should also act in their own best interest.
Does that mean that your answer is 'yes' and you think that every nation on the planet has the right to pre-emptively strike at any other one?
 

Njorl

Science Advisor
245
8
Originally posted by suyver
Does that mean that your answer is 'yes' and you think that every nation on the planet has the right to pre-emptively strike at any other one?
There is no sovereign authority above a nation. Nations do not have rights. Nations perform the actions they wish (and of which they are capable) and enjoy the benefits or suffer the consequences. Nations make agreements to make it more clear that egregious behaviour will have unhappy consequences.

When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, it was not a matter of rights. It was a matter of power. When the international coalition kicked him out, it was not justice, it was consequence.

In geopolitics, might makes right. This sounds awful, however, it is important to realize that good relations and good standing in the international community is a form of might. Iraq's military power was an inferior force compared to Kuwait's good relations with the world.

North Korea and Pakistan are free to engage in the actions you described. No sovereign authority can order them to stop, or arrest them. However, they would find that the results of those actions would be terribly detrimental to their welfare.

Njorl
 

selfAdjoint

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
6,764
5
Njorl, if there's one thing I admire it's a clear and bracing view of the facts as they are, rather than as we would wish them to be. Congratulations, and I hope many will take your words to heart.
 
248
0
Originally posted by Njorl
There is no sovereign authority above a nation.
Then what is the point of having a UN security council whose resolutions must be obeyed by all nations?
 
Originally posted by suyver
Then what is the point of having a UN security council whose resolutions must be obeyed by all nations?
They aren't obeyed!

The point is most nations can work together most of the time, better than individually. When this works, the UN is powerful. When, as with the Iraq crisis the UN can't get a coherant position together, it seems a waste of time.
No UN resolution will ever stop a government doing what it wants though, but it might be persuaded to change its mind if the UN acts together with one voice.
 

Njorl

Science Advisor
245
8
Originally posted by suyver
Then what is the point of having a UN security council whose resolutions must be obeyed by all nations?
Security council resolutions are often ignored. There is a point to it though. It is a means by which the community of nations can make its wishes more formally known. Violating a security council resolution means it is more likely that other nations will decide to flex their muscles against you.

Njorl
 
16
0
GENIERE

Only if a US citizen’s rights per US Constitution are not diminished.
Pick any law written in the USA. It doesn't matter at all outside the USA unless other nations say it does. Or unless enforced by, well, force. Which is what the USA is doing.


...And, as a matter of common sense and self-defense, America will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed.
Especially when the alleged threat has never attacked the USA, and there is no actual evidence of a threat...
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,385
4,636
Originally posted by suyver
Then what is the point of having a UN security council whose resolutions must be obeyed by all nations?
There is a reason they use the word "resolution" instead of the word "law."

As Njorl said - its more of a strongly worded suggestion than a law.
 
16
0
Njorl

There is no sovereign authority above a nation.
Dude, that's rather inherent in the word "sovereign". Naturally there is no sovereign authority higher than that of an entity holding sovereignty. However, that does not mean sovereign authority supercedes all other authorities.

Nations do not have rights.
Actually they do. That's what international law is for.

When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, it was not a matter of rights. It was a matter of power. When the international coalition kicked him out, it was not justice, it was consequence.
Almost. When the international coalition kicked him out, it was keeping resources for themselves. Nations invading other nations generally does not raise the ire of such powerful international forces. Only when oil is at stake.

In geopolitics, might makes right. This sounds awful, however, it is important to realize that good relations and good standing in the international community is a form of might. Iraq's military power was an inferior force compared to Kuwait's good relations with the world.
I think you should replace "Kuwait's good relations with the world" with "Kuwait's oil". Other than that, you're dead right. As sad and pathetic as it is, force is the only real currency in our global politics. Everything else is window dressing. I do not approve of this. I wish diplomacy and intellect carried some weight, and I wish the people would see through the window dressing to the actual product. But they don't.

North Korea and Pakistan are free to engage in the actions you described. No sovereign authority can order them to stop, or arrest them.
No sovereign authority would order them to stop. There are other authorities, however, which would, such as the UN, IAEA, ASEAN, and more. No doubt North Korea would ignore them all if pushed far enough. But good for them. They have the right to self-defence, and according to Bushy they have the right to attack anyone who might possibly threaten them in the future.

However, they would find that the results of those actions would be terribly detrimental to their welfare.
Well, let's see if we can get back into a MAD situation?
 

selfAdjoint

Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
6,764
5
The UN and those other alliances should order North Korea to stop? How pathetic. The UN has never been able to stop anyone from doing anything - well, since the Korean police action when the NKs were stopped from invading South Korea. What are they going to use, sanctions? NK is already sanctioned up to the point of starvation, what have they to lose?
 
G

GENIERE

Njorl:
-There is no sovereign authority above a nation. Nations do not have rights. Nations perform the actions they wish (and of which they are capable) and enjoy the benefits or suffer the consequences. Nations make agreements to make it more clear that egregious behaviour will have unhappy consequences.
SelfAdjoint:
Njorl, if there's one thing I admire it's a clear and bracing view of the facts as they are, rather than as we would wish them to be. Congratulations, and I hope many will take your words to heart.
Adam:
- International laws apply to the citizens of all signatory nations, within the regions controlled by those nations, and sometimes outside those regions as well. Get it?
Sorry Adam, I still don’t “get it”, but I do wish it could be otherwise. I remain overjoyed that a US soldier extended President Bush’s greeting to Hussein as he was pulled from his rat hole.
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,385
4,636
Re: Was Saddam Already A Prisoner?

Originally posted by Nommos Prime (Dogon)
http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=743

Its not that hard to catch somebody who is already captive.
This is why we are not hearing anything about the “informers” who pinpointed the location of Hussein.
Its certainly possible, but only #6 of the 7 facts (assuming they are all true) implies it was possible.
 
S

schwarzchildradius

The continuing insurgency in the wake of Saddam's capture demonstrates his irrelevance to an inherently democratic guerilla movement.
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,385
4,636
Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
The continuing insurgency in the wake of Saddam's capture demonstrates his irrelevance to an inherently democratic guerilla movement.
Hehe, maybe I missed it, but when did they vote for an insurgency?
 
S

schwarzchildradius

Obviously you wouldn't join an insurgency if foreign nation occupied US soil? No, I meant within guerilla movements there's usually a democratic structure, as in, they vote on the next primary target, vote for their military commanders etc.
 

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top