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

[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]

Pot to kettle

Adam, I think your're discovering, like me, that's its quite pointless trying to have intellectual and political conversations with the brainwashed.

...

 

[suyver]

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]

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

 

[suyver]

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]

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]

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.

 

[suyver]

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?

 

[Adrian Baker]

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]

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

 

[Adam]

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]

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.

 

[Adam]

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]

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?

 

[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.

 

[Nommos Prime (Dogon)]

Was Saddam Already A Prisoner?

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.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

 

[schwarzchildradius]

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

 

[russ_watters]

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?

 

[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.

 

[kat]

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

I'm sorry but you would just have to show me some sort of proof before I would by that this particular movement is "inherently democratic" why couldn't it be theocratic for instance?

 

[Njorl]

Originally posted by 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.

By that logic Josef Stalin was democratic. His vote was just the only one that mattered.

Njorl

 

[selfAdjoint]

Originally posted by 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.

An insurgency that works like that is an insurgency that is headed for trouble. Too easy to penetrate. Most successful insurgencies have adopted the cell structure, where the members of the cell only know each other, and only one or two know how to contact the next higher link in the hierarchy. If your theory were correct, successful insurgencies wouldn't be so focussed on the charismatic leader, Fidel, Commandant Zero, etc. The leader BTW, doesn't risk himself on operations.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
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.

You should join the army - you seem to know more about the structure of the insurgency than anyone else does.

Obviously you wouldn't join an insurgency if foreign nation occupied US soil?

False analogy. If I were an Iraqi living in Iraq today, I'd join with the Americans.

 

[amp]

Good answers Phobos...

What I think Adam is looking for is:
No, Saddam was fairly irrevalent. His capture was likely timed to coincide with the comming election. The approval ratings were skidding so ... abracadabra... We got 'im. Approval ratings start climbing. Now there is no proof that that is what occurred but given the way the media is used its likely. Also, it took attention away from, as you mentioned a certain vice-president's business and Haliburtons price gouging. It soothes the masses who notice how difficult the war on terror has become. There is more to it as I'm sure you know Adam.

 

[GENIERE]

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius

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.

Ingenious; these terrorist cells. I assume all targets are deemed primary to avoid the CIA knowing which target to protect. In my naïveté, I would have designated them primary, secondary, tertiary…

Originally posted by schwarzchildradius

Obviously you wouldn't join an insurgency if foreign nation occupied US soil.

This befuddles me somewhat. I’m not sure if a large nation such as Russia could fit on US soil. I would just send troops.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by russ_watters
If I were an Iraqi living in Iraq today, I'd join with the Americans.

No, you probably wouldn't...as a self-proclaimed partiot, you would see American troops as invaders, and join a group to fight them.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
No, you probably wouldn't...as a self-proclaimed partiot, you would see American troops as invaders, and join a group to fight them.

I've explained the definition of "patriot" to you too many times to attempt it again. If you haven't gotten it by now, there isn't any way I can teach it to you.