PDA

View Full Version : Bush: Saddam Deserves Ultimate Penalty



Ironduke
17 Dec 03,, 18:23
Bush: Saddam Deserves Ultimate Penalty
Associated Press
December 17, 2003


LONDON - President Bush said Saddam Hussein deserves the "ultimate penalty" for his crimes, but he faced objections from Europe, the United Nations and the Vatican, which are adamantly opposed to the death penalty.

But while most European countries have abolished the death penalty, it's not clear how vociferously they would object to a death sentence for the captured Iraqi president.

A day after saying his opinion on Saddam's fate doesn't matter and it's a decison for Iraqi citizen, Bush stepped forward with an unequivocal statement of his views.

"Let's just see what penalty he gets, but I think he ought to receive the ultimate penalty ... for what he has done to his people," Bush told ABC News' Diane Sawyer in an interview broadcast Tuesday. "I mean, he is a torturer, a murderer, they had rape rooms. This is a disgusting tyrant who deserves justice, the ultimate justice."

Bush said Saddam's punishment "will be decided not by the president of the United States but by the citizens of Iraq in one form or another."

Britain's left-leaning Guardian newspaper said Saddam should be tried by a United Nations-approved tribunal that would not impose the death penalty. "The last thing Iraq needs is another corpse - or a martyr," the paper said in an editorial.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair's spokesman said earlier this week that Britain opposes the death penalty, but it would have to accept an Iraqi decision to execute.

Yet Britain's top representative in Iraq, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, said his country would not participate in a tribunal or legal process that could lead to execution.

The Vatican's Cardinal Renato Martino stressed the Roman Catholic Church's longtime opposition to capital punishment.

He said he felt "compassion" for Saddam, despite his crimes, after seeing images of "this destroyed man" being "treated like a cow, having his teeth checked" by an American military medic.

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said the world body opposes the death penalty. The European Union shares his view.

"We believe there are no circumstances that can justify the death penalty," said Diego Ojeda, the EU's spokesman on external relations.

Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who supported the U.S.-led war that ousted Saddam, also emphasized his country's opposition to the death penalty.

The international community and the Iraqi leadership "must show the Iraqis that an alternative to the past decades' terror regimes exists," Denmark's Berlingske Tidende newspaper said.

Bush has long been a proponent of capital punishment. During his six years as governor of Texas, 152 convicts were put to death. All 15 member nations of the European Union have abolished capital punishment, and they often encourage other countries - most notably the United States - to abolish it.

Members of the U.S.-appointed Iraq Governing Council have predicted a quick trial and a quick execution for Saddam. The U.S. occupation authority suspended using the death penalty, and Iraqi officials have said they will decide whether to reinstate it when a transitional government assumes sovereignty, scheduled on July 1.

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Yuri Fedotov, whose country opposed the war, said only Iraqis could decide Saddam's fate.

But Australia's Prime Minister John Howard, who sent troops to fight in Iraq, said he would support the death penalty for Iraq. "If it were imposed, absolutely," he said.

http://www.military.com/NewsContent?file=FL_bush_121703

Praxus
17 Dec 03,, 18:26
How about the ultimate form of multi-culturalism which Leftist and Europeans profess to support and let the Iraqi's stone him to death.

Ironduke
17 Dec 03,, 21:43
Europeans are more leftist than the average American, but I don't really think they embrace multiculturalism all that much.

The US is a nation of immigrants, so although many don't like immigration, they are in the same boat our ancestors were a long time ago. (pun intended)

I think Europeans more or less see their nation as exclusively theirs, and they look down upon immigrants and foreigners much more than the Americans do.

Most Germans refer to foreigners as "Auslanders", regardless if they were born there or not. The French despise the Maghrebians. Spaniards do not like Moroccans one bit. People in the UK for the large part do not like the Asians or blacks.

Praxus
17 Dec 03,, 22:10
Of course they do, they think all cultures are morally equal. That is multi-culturalism.

Trooth
17 Dec 03,, 23:07
Originally posted by Ironman
Europeans are more leftist than the average American, but I don't really think they embrace multiculturalism all that much.

The US is a nation of immigrants, so although many don't like immigration, they are in the same boat our ancestors were a long time ago. (pun intended)

I think Europeans more or less see their nation as exclusively theirs, and they look down upon immigrants and foreigners much more than the Americans do.

Most Germans refer to foreigners as "Auslanders", regardless if they were born there or not. The French despise the Maghrebians. Spaniards do not like Moroccans one bit. People in the UK for the large part do not like the Asians or blacks.
Sorry but this post is just complete rubbish.

There are sections of every community that does not like its immigrants, of which there is no doubt. There are also sections of any community that don't like the natives!

Germany has had one of the most liberal "open door" policies of any nations. This was deliberately pursued after the racism etc that existed during the Nazi era. The French have had a large immigration from the former colonies.
The UK has had former colonies with millions of immigrants from Asia, the West Indies, Africa, Ireland etc. It now has many from Central Europe etc.

The generalisation that many of the lcoals don't like the immigrants is, frankly just facile. Of course there are your NF types who hate the Asians or Africans. But they are very much a "media attractive" minority.

It is no more accurate to say that, than it is to look at the actions of the KKK and then say that "most Americans are racists that like to burn crosses and lynch black people".


Originally posted by Praxus
Of course they do, they think all cultures are morally equal. That is multi-culturalism


Who the hell is "they"? There are 300 million people in Europe, "they" don't all think alike. nor do "they" all come from the same culture.

I know you view the US culture as superior in every way and that all others should be crushed under the cowboy boot. But i don't think that you are representative of the other 250m of your nation.

Stinger
17 Dec 03,, 23:19
You presume Praxus wears cowboy boots? I'm from Texas and I don't even wear cowboy boots...

Trooth
17 Dec 03,, 23:30
it was a metaphor for US culture. The fact that it doesn't cover the whole of the US is somewhat my point

Praxus
17 Dec 03,, 23:47
Who the hell is "they"? There are 300 million people in Europe, "they" don't all think alike. nor do "they" all come from the same culture.

I know you view the US culture as superior in every way and that all others should be crushed under the cowboy boot. But i don't think that you are representative of the other 250m of your nation.

They is the Eurocrats and they is the so called intilectuals in US Universitys.

Trooth
18 Dec 03,, 00:27
Ah right. You should say that then.

Regarding putting Saddam to the sword (or Stones as Praxus suggests) i suppose i should voice an opinion as a "leftist multi-cultural European". I am awaiting pinko-commie shortly :)

I normally don't go for the death penalty - but none of my normal reasons apply to Saddam. However he does have one attribute that makes his case very different, he is a captured despot which in itself makes him an asset of history. Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot etc were not brought to justice in a manner that Saddam can be.

The problem is that ideally Saddam would demonstrate his despotness to the world, making the west's case all the more easy. The likelihood is that he will be able to get enough "sound bites" in to fuel a few more nutters to strap on the explosives and head for the shops.

The squaddies that captured him did an excellent job getting him alive, however having a live despot is possibly a dangerous thing and maybe it would have been easier for him to "die a martyr" in a gunfight than to be executed by a western protected Iraqi regime that has allowed him to "rally the faithful". Assuming the "faithful" haven't seen him for the coward he appears to be.

Praxus
18 Dec 03,, 00:34
As long as 1st Degree or 2nd Degree murder has been proven beyond any reasonable dought I say kill him.

Why should innocent people have to pay for a murders exsistance?

As for Saddam, humiliate him in front of the world and then hang and or stone him.

Ironduke
18 Dec 03,, 03:36
Sorry but this post is just complete rubbish.

There are sections of every community that does not like its immigrants, of which there is no doubt. There are also sections of any community that don't like the natives!

Germany has had one of the most liberal "open door" policies of any nations. This was deliberately pursued after the racism etc that existed during the Nazi era. The French have had a large immigration from the former colonies.
The UK has had former colonies with millions of immigrants from Asia, the West Indies, Africa, Ireland etc. It now has many from Central Europe etc.

The generalisation that many of the lcoals don't like the immigrants is, frankly just facile. Of course there are your NF types who hate the Asians or Africans. But they are very much a "media attractive" minority.

It is no more accurate to say that, than it is to look at the actions of the KKK and then say that "most Americans are racists that like to burn crosses and lynch black people".
It is my impression that Europeans are wary of outsiders. Racist? No, I don't think most Europeans are.

Trooth
18 Dec 03,, 13:03
I all humans are wary of outsiders. Humans form tribes and in modern societies thse tribes can be based on race, nationality, football team, corporate employment, hobbies.

People are:dbanana

Leader
20 Dec 03,, 00:24
Originally posted by Trooth
The French have had a large immigration from the former colonies.

And the French are playing there immigration policy.


Who the hell is "they"? There are 300 million people in Europe, "they" don't all think alike. nor do "they" all come from the same culture.

They are the intellectual elites in Germany, in France, and in England and there brain washed followers who think they they should have a say in American foreign policy. Those who think their oil contracts trump the right of others to have freedom.


I know you view the US culture as superior in every way and that all others should be crushed under the cowboy boot. But i don't think that you are representative of the other 250m of your nation.

First, our culture is superior to yours. The people of our culture stood and fought Fascism, Communism and now terrorism. The majority of Europeans now stand against us in our war. They had it their way Saddam would still be ruling, raping, and butchering his way through Iraq. Secondly, my views are the beliefs had many Americans, in fact a majority. It isn't a fringe belief in America to think we did the right thing in Iraq, or that France should shut up.

Trooth
20 Dec 03,, 00:51
How is your culture superior to mine? Which are you likening me to? France? Germany? US? My personal view is that the war against Iraq was risky (not militarily but politically) but the right thing to do. However Bush and Blair arsed up the platorm for the war with quite possibly the most amateurish display. That and the ill planned peace are a problem. But no i would rather Saddam had been deposed.

My culture fought Facism, Communism and fought terror despite the US funding the terror my culture was fighting.

I am not sure what you mean by the oil rights being over people's freedoms. If you mean people who think oil is more important than people are wrong then i would agree with you.

Whilst i am no fan of the French, and least of all their immigration policy, especially after the tricks of Sengatte, i reserve their right to play their own policy, just as America pursues its own foreign policy.

The problem at the moment is that the only real foreign policy mediator (the UN) has now been reduced to an irrelevance. Perhaps it always was, but sometimes symbols are important just by existing. Now small nations have no way of influencing foreign policy of larger nations. I guess they just have to join up with the lobbyist groups and influence domestic policy. Or tehy will take to more "active" forms of action. I am not ocndoning it, more trying to see the consequences.

Also, it imght be worth me pointing out that Europe is not one country anymore than North America is a country. There is no common foreign policy on either continent.

Leader
20 Dec 03,, 02:06
Originally posted by Trooth
However Bush and Blair arsed up the platorm for the war with quite possibly the most amateurish display.

Was France doing the same? Because they came to the same conclusion about WMD's as we did.


That and the ill planned peace are a problem. But no i would rather Saddam had been deposed.

What should they have done? Handed it over to the UN. So they could create another socialist mess like Kosovo.


My culture fought Facism, Communism and fought terror despite the US funding the terror my culture was fighting.

Your comparison between Irish terrorism and Islamist terrorism is deeply flawed and you know it.


I am not sure what you mean by the oil rights being over people's freedoms. If you mean people who think oil is more important than people are wrong then i would agree with you.

That's what France did. It put there oil contracts a head of freedom for the Iraqi people.


Whilst i am no fan of the French, and least of all their immigration policy, especially after the tricks of Sengatte, i reserve their right to play their own policy, just as America pursues its own foreign policy.

And I have the right to condemn them is the hashes way for there policies which degrade the security of the United States.


The problem at the moment is that the only real foreign policy mediator (the UN) has now been reduced to an irrelevance.

Good.


Now small nations have no way of influencing foreign policy of larger nations.

As it has been for all of history, and how it should be. I'm tired of tin pot dictatorships getting a vote on American foreign policy.


I guess they just have to join up with the lobbyist groups and influence domestic policy.

Any pol that gives the time of day to a lobbyist from another country should be thrown out of office.


Or tehy will take to more "active" forms of action.

Good luck to them, but seeing how they are small countries that we are talking about I don't think they are going to do much damage.


Also, it imght be worth me pointing out that Europe is not one country anymore than North America is a country. There is no common foreign policy on either continent.

Europe will have a united foreign policy if France has it's way. I hope countries like the UK and Poland will stop that from going through any thing soon.

Trooth
20 Dec 03,, 03:01
Your comparison between Irish terrorism and Islamist terrorism is deeply flawed and you know it.

Sorry i wasn't aware there was a good kind of terrorism.

Regarding France, the french missed that the end justifies the means. In the case of Saddam the reason for war was Saddam it didn't need everything else.

But Saddam was not on sure fotting in the muslim world. After all Bin Laden has tried to kill him! Other leaders are much more well positioned in the muslim world. Which is why i think the war on Terror is a "hearts and minds war" as much as amilitary one.

Blademaster
20 Dec 03,, 05:17
Leader,

Your posts are generally good, but in this case, you are really talking out of your ass.

"My culture is superior to yours"?

What the fuck is that?

Do I need to bring up the case of slavery again? Jim Crows laws? segragation? support for dictators in Africa countries, undermining democratic movements even though they had socialist elements to it?

Praxus
20 Dec 03,, 13:48
Do I need to bring up the case of slavery again? Jim Crows laws? segragation? support for dictators in Africa countries, undermining democratic movements even though they had socialist elements to it?

To bad this was over 100 years ago!!!

Sagragation ended over 40 years ago.

Don't go saying how the British eliminated slavery before we did because you know damn well they wouldn't have if they didn't lose the colonies.


support for dictators in Africa countries
Support for Dictators is immoral and no one is argueing that.


The fact is that WESTERN Culture, the idea's of Individual Rights and Capitalism are supperior to any other system of Government and Economic System.

Blademaster
20 Dec 03,, 20:24
The fact is that WESTERN Culture, the idea's of Individual Rights and Capitalism are supperior to any other system of Government and Economic System.

No shit? is that a fact? Oh whippee doo, the american culture is so superior that other cultures just suck. Oh my culture is so inferior. I must bow to your superior upbringing and abase myself.:w00t

Ok i must say that i must be an inferior person to Praxus, Leader because I came from an inferior culture. I bow to Praxus & Leader's superior self.:dbanana :LOL :roll

Trooth
20 Dec 03,, 22:21
I had composed a long "superior culture" response. But it occurred to me that with all belief systems, logic has no place. So i will add only this :-

If you believe that your excuse for cultural genocide is your own superiority then below are amongst your peers :-

* Adolf Hitler
* Slobodan Milosovic
* Osama Bin Laden

I am sure you can add your own role models to this list.

smilingassassin
20 Dec 03,, 23:47
The problem at the moment is that the only real foreign policy mediator (the UN) has now been reduced to an irrelevance.

We have the French to thank for this, they purposely make it their little debating society, opposing the U.S. on every matter no matter how much sence it make. Britain and the U.S. negotiate a monitary settlement for the locerbee bombing and what do the French do?, cry foul and say its illegitimate because the settlement they got for some bush plane bombing didn't get the same sum of money or publicity for that matter. Here is a country (libya) trying to make ammends and france is whineing and sticking its nose into the Americans affairs, I'm sure France is real happy the Libya is now going to dismantle their WMD program through negotiations with Britain and the U.S.
The fact of the matter is the U.N. is absolutely useless, an utter disappointment, the last time they did anything credible was in the Korean war. To hear Kofi Annan claim he feels simpathy for Saddam and that no action diserves a death sentance is simply laughable and quite frankly makes him look like a complete ass. Saddam was responcible for the murder of millions of Kurds, Kuwaiti's, Iranians and Iraqi's as well as attacking Isreal, funding terrorists that opposed Isreal/the west and defied 12 years of U.N. resolutions.
Its nice to see so many ass's in this world who would feel simpathy for an insane murdering dictator, glad they weren't around when Hitler was on his rampage, they are nothing more than defeatists cowards and traiters.

Leader
21 Dec 03,, 00:51
Originally posted by Trooth
Sorry i wasn't aware there was a good kind of terrorism.

Go find where I said Irish terrorism was good.


Regarding France, the french missed that the end justifies the means. In the case of Saddam the reason for war was Saddam it didn't need everything else.

No, the french missed that morality doesn't mean to line your pockets.


But Saddam was not on sure fotting in the muslim world. After all Bin Laden has tried to kill him! Other leaders are much more well positioned in the muslim world. Which is why i think the war on Terror is a "hearts and minds war" as much as amilitary one.

Ha
http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1028

Leader
21 Dec 03,, 00:53
Originally posted by Blademaster
Do I need to bring up the case of slavery again? Jim Crows laws? segragation? support for dictators in Africa countries, undermining democratic movements even though they had socialist elements to it?

And your culture is superior to mine on any of those fronts?

Leader
21 Dec 03,, 00:56
Originally posted by Trooth
I had composed a long "superior culture" response. But it occurred to me that with all belief systems, logic has no place. So i will add only this :-

If you believe that your excuse for cultural genocide is your own superiority then below are amongst your peers :-

* Adolf Hitler
* Slobodan Milosovic
* Osama Bin Laden

I am sure you can add your own role models to this list.

:roll This isn't an arguement about whether or not I am personally superior to you. Therefore there is unlike to be any mass murder.

Trooth
21 Dec 03,, 00:58
There is clearly a role for a foreign policy mediator. In all mature forms of politics a balance is maintained. On the global scale that is now missing. The French certainly have to shoulder some blame. They certainly were not part of the solution. However it must also be said that the case that they were opposing was pretty ropey. The reality was that Saddam needed to go and the French should have seen that, not argued the toss about the pile of cack that the US/UK were putting forward.

And of course the French are opposed to a modern swift war due to the long lead time to deploy their troops, especially building all the brothels. :)

Trooth
21 Dec 03,, 01:01
Originally posted by Leader
:roll This isn't an arguement about whether or not I am personally superior to you. Therefore there is unlike to be any mass murder.

Then why advocate it? :roll

Leader
21 Dec 03,, 01:04
Originally posted by Trooth
Then why advocate it? :roll

I don't advocate mass murder. If you can find where I said that we should start lining up Euros to be shoot, I'd love to hear it.

Leader
21 Dec 03,, 01:09
Originally posted by Trooth
There is clearly a role for a foreign policy mediator. In all mature forms of politics a balance is maintained. On the global scale that is now missing. The French certainly have to shoulder some blame. They certainly were not part of the solution. However it must also be said that the case that they were opposing was pretty ropey. The reality was that Saddam needed to go and the French should have seen that, not argued the toss about the pile of cack that the US/UK were putting forward.

And of course the French are opposed to a modern swift war due to the long lead time to deploy their troops, especially building all the brothels. :)

I don't see the use of a foreign policy mediator. Such an organization offers us less power with no benefit in return. Therefore, it's useless. Just another way the French can stick their noise in to matters that are of no concern to them.

Trooth
21 Dec 03,, 01:18
Originally posted by Leader
I don't advocate mass murder. If you can find where I said that we should start lining up Euros to be shoot, I'd love to hear it.

Not sure where Euros came into it. I was referring to the ongoing "wipe out Syria" debate in another thread. However on reflection i am not sure that was completely related, and in fact it wasn't you who proposed it. Although you didn't exactly hate the idea :)

Leader
21 Dec 03,, 01:21
Originally posted by Trooth
Not sure where Euros came into it. I was referring to the ongoing "wipe out Syria" debate in another thread. However on reflection i am not sure that was completely related, and in fact it wasn't you who proposed it. Although you didn't exactly hate the idea :)

I support the same think should be done in Syria as was done in Iraq. Last time I checked, what we did in Iraq didn't constitute "genocide."

Trooth
21 Dec 03,, 01:24
Indeed. But the Syrian sentiment was basically to wipe them out. The basis was that they weren't like us.

Oh and i do not believe there is a superrior ulture. Everyone has some pretty large flaws.

Blademaster
21 Dec 03,, 01:37
And your culture is superior to mine on any of those fronts?

Tell me where did I say that my culture was superior to yours?

You *were* the one that brought up superior culture. I just rebutted your statement without implying or stating that my culture is superior to yours.

No culture is without flaws.

Leader & Praxus, you seriously need to get off your high horses.

Confed999
21 Dec 03,, 02:03
Originally posted by Blademaster
Leader & Praxus, you seriously need to get off your high horses.
Why? Because they don't agree with you? It seems to me if they think a culture is superior, then to them it is, regardless of anyone else's opinion. If you like the horse you're on, ride it as far as it will take you.

Blademaster
21 Dec 03,, 06:01
Very well, I shall watch them walk away on their high horse and watch Fate force them to be unhorse. I think it will be a merry event. Wonder if I could make a quick buck by selling tickets although the problem will be forecasting the event?

Ah the wonders of the capitalist system, eh? :LOL

Confed999
21 Dec 03,, 12:29
Leaving it to fate? The fates are quite unpredictable, and their tapestry allways incomplete. You may find yourself holding alot of worthless tickets.

Trooth
21 Dec 03,, 12:30
Originally posted by Confed999
Why? Because they don't agree with you? It seems to me if they think a culture is superior, then to them it is, regardless of anyone else's opinion. If you like the horse you're on, ride it as far as it will take you.

I think my major surprise is that they are advocating a foreign policy based on a belief system.

Confed999
21 Dec 03,, 14:01
Originally posted by Trooth
I think my major surprise is that they are advocating a foreign policy based on a belief system.
Are there any foreign policies, political systems, business plans or virtually anything, that isn't based on a belief system? Seems if I get philosophical enough, everything comes from a belief system. I'm not sure there is anything else.

Leader
21 Dec 03,, 21:04
Originally posted by Trooth
I think my major surprise is that they are advocating a foreign policy based on a belief system.

:roll It's not a "belief system." It's called morality.

smilingassassin
21 Dec 03,, 22:13
It's not a "belief system." It's called morality.

...and the morality of the issue is this. Saddam supported international terrorism, attempted to assassinate a former U.S. president, started three wars, attacked and occupied all or parts of two nabours country's in addition to launching missles at a third all being unprevoked actions, used chemical weapons against Kurds, Iranians and Iraqis themselves, set up torture and rape rooms to murder thousands of his own people and defied the UN for 12 years, a U.N. so beloved by defeatist liberals conserned more with their own safety then the so called moral issues that the bring up now as a smoke screen. In addition saddam at the age of 20 murdered his own brother in law, took part in a failed assassination attempt of the prime minister of Iraq and then when finnaly achieving his leadership murdered dozens of his staunchest freinds durring his first leadership speach and would murder many more, this man idolized Stalin by the way...could you tell?
Now that a tyrant like this is out of power men like Momar Gaddafee are willing to scrap their WMD programs completely and join the civilized world in denoncing terrorism instead of doing like the left and acting like a bunch of lawyers on high horses argueing for months on the "legal" road to taking down a man who cares nothing of international law. If the Brits had taken that route the Germans would have completely destroyed their airfields in the battle of Britain while diplomats argued about the "legal ramifications" of bombing Berlin. The U.S. wouldn't have the moral boosting dolittle raid after pearl harbour, the allies wouldn't have landed at Inch'on when the North Koreans were invading the South unprevoked. The "with us or against us" speach was a very easy speach to understand, either you support terrorism or you move to do something about the causes of it and make the change for the better, sitting on the fence debating wasn't an option.

Trooth
22 Dec 03,, 12:06
Originally posted by Leader
Go find where I said Irish terrorism was good.


You offered the fact that they were different as an explanation for US involvement. Presumably, for the US to be involved in one, and against the other, it must prefer on?



Ha
http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1028

I take all of the sources for this info are now safe? Their safety was the reason it was known but couldn't be told earlier?

And this is somewhat my point (possibly not this thread but some other). Foreign policy allies change frequently. Your enemies enemy may well be your friend for a short while (Al-Qaeda and Saddam spring to mind as former assistants to US foreign policy). But it doesn't mean they always will be.

Therefore the only way through it is hearts and minds.

Trooth
22 Dec 03,, 12:19
Originally posted by smilingassassin
...and the morality of the issue is this ....

I never said that Saddam should not be toppled. My point was that the platform for the war was so poorly put together. That was what caused all the problems in the UN and at home for the UK, French, German and Canadian governments, to name a few. The final platform (of the three that were swung between as the need arose) was WMD, which is now becoming a problem for the US gonverment domestically.



If the Brits had taken that route the Germans would have completely destroyed their airfields in the battle of Britain while diplomats argued about the "legal ramifications" of bombing Berlin. The U.S. wouldn't have the moral boosting dolittle raid after pearl harbour, the allies wouldn't have landed at Inch'on when the North Koreans were invading the South unprevoked. The "with us or against us" speach was a very easy speach to understand, either you support terrorism or you move to do something about the causes of it and make the change for the better, sitting on the fence debating wasn't an option.

Those arguments are based on "do or die to hell with morality actions". I think there is a slight difference between an all out war were the victor will be the last country standing and the "War on Terror". Worthy though the latter is, it is about taking on nutters in civilian areas and the morality involved must stand up to even the most intense scrutiny. Remember Bush is right int hat there is likely to never be an end to the war on Terror.

Confed999
22 Dec 03,, 23:21
Originally posted by Trooth
I think there is a slight difference between an all out war were the victor will be the last country standing and the "War on Terror".
You're right. This time it could easily become, last religion standing.

smilingassassin
23 Dec 03,, 00:52
Those arguments are based on "do or die to hell with morality actions". I think there is a slight difference between an all out war were the victor will be the last country standing and the "War on Terror".

In my opinion there is no difference, when 3000 civilians are murdered in a blatently spectacular attack the sorces of terrorism and the terrorists them selves should be eradicated. Saddam clearly supported palistinian terrorists, who in turn had ties to Al Quida. Europe no matter how you worded it just didn't get this message,.....why?....because as long as the terrorists are attacking the U.S. they are safe, and to add insult to injury they use anti-american sentament to get their leaders ellected. So unfortunately bush had to use an arguement that actually scared them, the WMD arguement.

Trooth
23 Dec 03,, 20:27
Most europeans have more experience of Terrorism than the US.

The UK, France, Germany (mostly picking up the UK's fallout), Spain, Italy, Greece etc have all suffered years of terrorism.

Perhaps it was this reason that made them seem less affected than the US, not that Al-qaeda was operating in the US?

Whilst terrorism has happened at WTC in 93(?) and i suppose Oklahoma, it wasn't something that affected people on the US mainland nearly as much as europeans

So whilst the largest single terrorist attack on UK citizens happened in New York on 11/9/01, and the manner was spectacular, it wasn't something that was a new tragedy for the UK to absorb, if you see what i mean.

The UK (and me if you care) were always behind the war in Afghanistan (Al-qaeda and the Taliban was a legitimate target of course). The war in Iraq was, as i have said, a perfectly justifiable war. But not on the platform that was given.

Like it or not, democratic leaders are accountable to their constituencies. The platform that was put forward was rubbish but it was all those leaders had to work with. This isn't all Bush's fault. He didn't care about the UN. Tanks they were a heading for Baghdad. Blair was still trying to ride the US Tiger. He was trying to hold the coaliition - that i think he can take a lot of personal glory for arranging - together. He travelled the world post 11/9 trying to ensure that bin laden failed (that the word jihad was not used by Arabic politicians). The problem was he went a step too far. Instead of saying "we support America" and leaving the other nations to sort themselves out, he declared he would prove the case (which had finally flip-flopped to WMD).

In the next year Saddam will have been tried and embarrased himself before his execution. Within a decade the US will have removed it occupation forces and converted it to a purely military base, as it has in the UK, for example. Over that ten years, the US will have reduced its dependance on Israel as a middle eastern ally which might change that demographic slightly, but it remains to be seen what else will happen between now and then to see if that is a problem for Israel.

Blair may have naused up the "dodgy dossier" but he was right histroy will look favourably on the action. Of if you like, the end justifies the means.

Confed999
23 Dec 03,, 21:40
Originally posted by Trooth
The war in Iraq was, as i have said, a perfectly justifiable war. But not on the platform that was given.
I think that's sad, 1 million + dead, terrorist links, failure to comply with the terms of their own surrender, along with a stack of UN resolutions and still unaccounted for WMDs. Seems like 100 times, or more, the platform given for any of the "peacekeeping" missions going on right now. Regardless of what anyone says, there was no real way to find the truth without FULL Iraqi cooperation, and that wasn't going to happen.