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

[Adam]

A lot of people are saying "Yay, Saddam is 'caught', great". But why? What is your reson for cheering?

Sure, he was a nasty guy. So are many others. Is your reason for cheering based on emotion, law, justice, or what?

Right now, Idi Amin sits happy and fat in Saudi Arabia, the country which spawned most of the 9/11 hijackers and a major ally of the USA.

George Bush Junior was ultimately responsible for the executions of 152 citizens while governor of Texas. He also was ultimately responsible for the deaths of over 8000 Iraqi civilians during the invasion. This from a government which refused to join the ICC.

Robert Mugabe sits happy on his stolen seat of power, playing at being a mini-Hitler, and nobody is chasing him down.

Something like twenty million people in the USA live in poverty, and the country has one quarter of the world's prison population. Yet Bush blew a fortune on a war which profits only a handful of people, including the former CEO of Halliburton, Dick Cheney. Why isn't this money being used to help the homeless in the USA?

In short: By what measure do you judge it a good thing that Saddam was hunted in his own country after an illegal invasion, and taken into the custody of a state which does things like Camp X-Ray?



PS: Don't go whinging that I am a Saddam supporter. I'm not. I have made no mention in this post of my own personal opinion of the man. I don't intend to. I wish to know your rationale regarding international law and justice.

 

[Njorl]

If Saddam staying on the run meant:

-Idi Amin were deported to Uganda to be tried by his countrymen.

-Those behind the 9/11 attack were exposed and punished.

-The Death penalty were either abolished or at least applied more fairly.

-Robert Mugabe were thrown out of office and an elected liberal democracy were installed.

-Poverty was eliminated.

-Prisons actually rehabilitated prisoners and returned them functionally to society.

I'd be all for Saddam staying on the run. But it wouldn't mean any of that. So I'm glad he was caught. It might make the Iraqi people a little more secure in creating a good government. It might also make the religious fundamentalists a little more willing to be violently opposed to Americans, now that they are sure they won't get Saddam back. I'm hoping the former is true, but not the latter.

Njorl

 

[Adam]

If Saddam staying on the run meant:
-Idi Amin were deported to Uganda to be tried by his countrymen.
-Those behind the 9/11 attack were exposed and punished.
-The Death penalty were either abolished or at least applied more fairly.
-Robert Mugabe were thrown out of office and an elected liberal democracy were installed.
-Poverty was eliminated.
-Prisons actually rehabilitated prisoners and returned them functionally to society.

I'd be all for Saddam staying on the run. But it wouldn't mean any of that. So I'm glad he was caught.

Shooting your neighbour's dog won't accomplish those things either. Is it then a good idea to shoot your neighbour's dog, simply because it won't accomplish those things?

Ie: You have said "Saddam in custody is good because Saddam out of custody won't solve A, B, and C." In fact neither Saddam in or out of custody solves A, B, or C. So him being in custody has absolutely no bearing on A, B, or C. Thus A, B, and C, can not be used as arguments for Saddam being in custody. So what justifies the activity and expense we have seen?

It might make the Iraqi people a little more secure in creating a good government. It might also make the religious fundamentalists a little more willing to be violently opposed to Americans, now that they are sure they won't get Saddam back. I'm hoping the former is true, but not the latter.

Well, I certainly hope Iraq eventually gets something good out of this.

 

[kyleb]

the capture of Saddam is really the only notably good thing to have come of all of this sofar. granted, it doesn't change all the other crap; but i see no reason to be anything but happy about his caputre.

 

[GENIERE]

Adam – Perhaps you will enlighten me.

In short: By what measure do you judge it a good thing that Saddam was hunted in his own country after an illegal invasion, and taken into the custody of a state which does things like Camp X-Ray?

You state “illegal Invasion” which implies there exists, somewhere, a law proscribing one nation from invading another. Please provide a reference for my edification.

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by Adam
Thus A, B, and C, can not be used as arguments for Saddam being in custody.

Pity, you're the one who used them first.

- Warren

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Adam
Shooting your neighbour's dog won't accomplish those things either. Is it then a good idea to shoot your neighbour's dog, simply because it won't accomplish those things?

[?] [?] You win the "most bizarre thing I've read all day" award, Adam. Maybe you misread Njorl's post (I hope).

Adam, you answered your first two questions with the sentence that immediately followed them.

 

[Adam]

Originally posted by GENIERE
Adam – Perhaps you will enlighten me.



You state “illegal Invasion” which implies there exists, somewhere, a law proscribing one nation from invading another. Please provide a reference for my edification.

United Nation Charter, Chapter 1, Article 2:

Part 1: "The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members."

Part 3: "All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered."

Part 4: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

There is of course Chapter 7, but that is irrelecent since the SC did not make any such decision.

 

[Zantra]

Originally posted by Adam
United Nation Charter, Chapter 1, Article 2:

Part 1: "The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members."

Part 3: "All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered."

Part 4: "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

There is of course Chapter 7, but that is irrelecent since the SC did not make any such decision.

Tell that to Hitler,Moussileni,And Milosevich. If we had stayed to the strict letter of the law, you might very well be speaking german right now, JA? And put Saddamn in the same category as the other 3. I think the world can agree that Saddam was a horrible leader. And if we went after another horrible leader, we'd be getting flack for not going after Saddam. So it's a catch 22. We take it one day at a time.

 

[Adam]

Originally posted by chroot
Pity, you're the one who used them first.

Apparently you and the other fellow just didn't get it. I will explain.

There are many bad things going on in the world. I gave a list of just a few such things.

Capturing Saddam Hussein, or not capturing him, either way, has absolutely no effect on any of those bad things going on in the world.

Applying resources and effort to capturing Saddam Hussein does nothing whatsoever to fix any of those bad things going on.

Therefore, is capturing Saddam Hussein in any way important? If so, how?

Given the other problems in the world, what do you see as the justification for invading Iraq and removing its ruler? Should such resources and effort as were devoted to this exercise instead be devoted to other things, such as those on the list?

Now, someone said "I'd be all for Saddam staying on the run. But it wouldn't mean any of that. So I'm glad he was caught." Follow the bouncing ball. You have two base states:

1) Invade Iraq and go after Saddam.
2) Don't invade Iraq and go after Saddam.

1 involves use of resources and effort.
2 doesn't.

Therefore, if it does not matter to the person who responded whether Saddam is caught or not, 2 is the best option, because it expends less resources and effort.

Now, given that 2 is the preferable option, why go into Iraq?

 

[Adam]

Zantra

Tell that to Hitler,Moussileni,And Milosevich.

Two of those were before the United Nations.

The third was dragged into the streets by his own people after a combined campaign. Question: Was Milosevich the head of a member state of the UN?

If we had stayed to the strict letter of the law, you might very well be speaking german right now, JA?

Not at all. Once again, the UN did not exist at that time. And in fact it was Germany's breach of the law which caused the international reaction.

And put Saddamn in the same category as the other 3. I think the world can agree that Saddam was a horrible leader.

I agree Saddam Hussein was a horrible leader. Unlike with the first two, the UN now exists. And the UN requires a Security Council decision to attack a member state. That decision did not happen. Thus the invasion was illegal.

And if we went after another horrible leader, we'd be getting flack for not going after Saddam.

I disagree. I think if the USA government followed the laws they have agreed to, there would be much less flack.

 

[Phobos]

Originally posted by Adam
A lot of people are saying "Yay, Saddam is 'caught', great". But why? What is your reson for cheering?

Because it brings us another step closer to being done.
Because it means he won't get back into power.
Because it gives the new government a better chance at success.
Because he will be brought to trial for his crimes.
Because it provides some hope that the ongoing guerrilla war will lessen.

Even if you disagree with the war, that's already a done deal, so it seems better to have him in custody rather than out there as an unknown. Even countries that opposed the war expressed relief that he was caught.

 

[Phobos]

Originally posted by Adam
Sure, he was a nasty guy. So are many others.

It's not an either-or situation. There can be efforts against Saddam and others at the same time. It doesn't have to be all or nothing.

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by Adam
Applying resources and effort to capturing Saddam Hussein does nothing whatsoever to fix any of those bad things going on.

So you think the resources should have been used to deal with another of the "bad things" on your list, eh? Why? Let's say there are ten "bad things" going on -- and we stop one of them. Why is that not a step in the right direction?

You don't seem to understand that Saddam was one of the bad things going on.

- Warren

 

[Adam]

Originally posted by Phobos
Because it brings us another step closer to being done.
Because it means he won't get back into power.
Because it gives the new government a better chance at success.
Because he will be brought to trial for his crimes.
Because it provides some hope that the ongoing guerrilla war will lessen.

Even if you disagree with the war, that's already a done deal, so it seems better to have him in custody rather than out there as an unknown. Even countries that opposed the war expressed relief that he was caught.

Question: All good reasons, given that the war did happen. But do you think it should have happened at all? Or perhaps after things within the USA were fixed?

 

[Adam]

Originally posted by Phobos
It's not an either-or situation. There can be efforts against Saddam and others at the same time. It doesn't have to be all or nothing.

Fair enough.

 

[Adam]

chroot

So you think the resources should have been used to deal with another of the "bad things" on your list, eh?

You are not paying attention. I did not say that. I am asking the question, about peoples' priorities.

Why? Let's say there are ten "bad things" going on -- and we stop one of them. Why is that not a step in the right direction?

Fair enough. I agree, as I have said many times, Saddam Hussein was a nasty guy. Once again, I am asking about priorities.

You don't seem to understand that Saddam was one of the bad things going on.

I understand quite a lot. Can you answer the question, about why that, then? Why not other things now, and that thing later? Was it justified given other requirements?

 

[chroot]

Originally posted by Adam
Fair enough. I agree, as I have said many times, Saddam Hussein was a nasty guy. Once again, I am asking about priorities.

You have repeatedly implied that feel Saddam should not have been a first priority. Why don't you share that reasoning first?

It's sad, but true, that I cannot speak for my government. The administration may, or may not, have had good reason to suspect Iraq was a threat. The whole story is honestly not available to the citizens quite yet.

- Warren

 

[BoulderHead]

Originally posted by Adam
Question: All good reasons, given that the war did happen. But do you think it should have happened at all? Or perhaps after things within the USA were fixed?

But this isn't what your original question asked. You have been been given an answer to what it was you wanted to know yet are not content.

 

[GENIERE]

Adam, I ask for laws, you provide me with principles and purposes of the UN Charter. As the US is a member of the UN, you may make the argument that the US violated the principles and purposes of the UN Charter, but not any supposed law. I can argue that the US and all its coalition allies acted it a manner consistent with the charter, while a few members of the UN Security Council did not.

My government interpreted UN Resolution 1441 to mean it directed the UN to retaliate against the regime of Saddam Hussein and remove him from power. I agree with the interpretation, your government agreed. You, obviously disagree.

If your argument were correct, than the UN was obligated under its charter to retaliate, by pacifist or military measures, against all offending nations, including Australia. Obviously no such retaliation occurred. A response to that could be that the UN lacked the means to retaliate against the economic and military might of the US, and certainly not against the entire coalition. It could also be that a resolution to retaliate against the coalition nations could not possibly be passed, so no member state brought it to the floor.

One thing that we can probably agree on is that the UN is quite useless as a peacemaking organization.

 

[Adam]

chroot

Originally posted by chroot
You have repeatedly implied that feel Saddam should not have been a first priority. Why don't you share that reasoning first?

I did not actually say that. Pay attention. Once again, I am asking a question about the priorities of this board's users.

 

[Adam]

GENIERE

Adam, I ask for laws, you provide me with principles and purposes of the UN Charter. As the US is a member of the UN, you may make the argument that the US violated the principles and purposes of the UN Charter, but not any supposed law.

The UN Charter IS international law. What are you smoking? International law consists of treaties, agreements and all which are agreed to by signatory parties. If Thailand and Burma sign a treaty to share fridge magnets, that is international law. The UN Charter ia international law to the signatory parties.

My government interpreted UN Resolution 1441 to mean it directed the UN to retaliate against the regime of Saddam Hussein and remove him from power. I agree with the interpretation, your government agreed. You, obviously disagree.

Actually my government did not agree. That is why our government passed their first ever vote of no confidence, for John Howard's unsupported agreement to give our troops to the USA.

I have quoted the relevant section of the UN Charter. Please read it.

If your argument were correct, than the UN was obligated under its charter to retaliate, by pacifist or military measures, against all offending nations, including Australia.

Indeed. This is one of the big problems with the UN. It's not really there to safeguard international peace and co-opertaion. It's there to safeguard the interests of the permanent members of the Security Council.

Obviously no such retaliation occurred. A response to that could be that the UN lacked the means to retaliate against the economic and military might of the US, and certainly not against the entire coalition. It could also be that a resolution to retaliate against the coalition nations could not possibly be passed, so no member state brought it to the floor.

I would bet that in the next two decades, a new organisation similar to the UN will emerge, consisting mainly of developing nations, specifically aimed at protecting their interests from the UN.

One thing that we can probably agree on is that the UN is quite useless as a peacemaking organization.

For the most part, yes.

 

[Adrian Baker]

Why?

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

Why?
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.

Why?
He inspired other ruthless men who realized thet the UN was useless and that they too could do as they wish.

Why?
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.

Why?
Because a democratically elected government decided it was the best policy. Some of us believe in democracy. If we don't like what happened, we can vote them out.

Why?
Because the Iraqi people deserved better.


Why Adam do you have to ask? Why do you find fault with so many others who 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?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Adam
I did not actually say that. Pay attention. Once again, I am asking a question about the priorities of this board's users.

No, that is not what you asked. You simply asked why we were happy he was caught (if you don't remember, the subject line is at the top of the page). For that question, priorities are not relevant.

Perhaps the wording of the question isn't in line with the intent of the thread?

 

[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.

Section 2 of the US Constitution re: The Supreme Court

Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

I, perhaps erroneously, believe that in Australia the executive branch is deemed “The Government”. The legislative branch apparently disagreed with “The Government”.

You seem driven to resort to personal attacks when others offer opposing viewpoints, the archetypical leftist tactic.

 

[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+]

*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...

 

[Adam]

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 realized 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 government 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.

 

[Adam]

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?

 

[Nommos Prime (Dogon)]

Its Pointless (These Personal Attacks)

Adam, I think your're discovering, like me, that's 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.

 

[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?