[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Saddam will be found guilty - but it’ll be a hell of a show.[/quote]
Be really ironic if they aquitted him and then elected him president, wouldn’t it?
Wonder how Bush would respond to that kind of thing?
Michael Moore seems to be pretty fond of him!
Tme,
"Be really ironic if they aquitted him and then elected him president, wouldn’t it?
Wonder how Bush would respond to that kind of thing?"
That’s a stupid hypothetical, don’t you think?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
That’s a stupid hypothetical, don’t you think?[/quote]
Probably, given the kangaroo court nature of the proceedings. But it’s an Iraqi court in Iraq, and I suppose they’ll do what they want. That may or may not be what they’ve been told to do.
[quote]Right Side Up wrote:
Of course I don’t like Saddaam. I don’t like what he did to his people. Being the strong, policing nation we are, we ought to be consistent, then, and invade every country in the world that presides under a ruthless dictator and install a government that meets our ideals…sound reasonable?
[/quote]
No, no, no. This is my least favorite [of the serious ones anyway] criticism for going in to Iraq. Just because one decides to solve one problem does not morally obligate one to solve all problems. If I chose to work in one soup kitchen on one weekend because I thought I should, I am not then morally obligated to work in other soup kitchens on other weekends.
In a perfect world, with unlimited resources, perhaps you would choose to solve all problems, but even then you would not need to do so.
And then, there is the related argument that people make, which is that we should only do humanitarian intervention when it would give us nothing in return. In other words, it was OK to go into the former Yugoslavia, because it had absolutely no economic or geopolitical significance, but we can’t go in to Iraq because there might actually be other good consequences besides the humanitarian ones. The fact that there are other interests there besides humanitarian interests does nothing to diminish the humanitarian interests.
These come together thusly: It is perfectly fine and logical, in a world of limited resources, to have a policy of making humanitarian interventions based on a cost/benefit analysis. Just like attacking any set of problems: You take care of the most important ones first, and if you can you move on to the others.
What would make no sense is to say that we can do no humanitarian interventions because we cannot do all of them.
Tme,
Kangaroo court?
Explain.
PtrDr,
Lumpy and the boys are so distraught over the possibility of another four years of republican rule that they will say almost anything to discredit President Bush.
Don’t let it bother you, it’s sort of become amusing to me. In fact, I feel another little satirical piece might be in order…just to make them all laugh 
Thunderbolt
You always say NO can’t be possible! to any disagreement with your view and then ask for proof! Where does your authority or all encompassing knowledge come from that you can decide what is what?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Tme,
Kangaroo court?
Explain.[/quote]
Kangaroo court:
“An unfair trial in which the rights of the accused and precepts of justice are ignored and the outcome is usually known beforehand.”
Not that I don’t think he’s guilty, or that he even deserves a “fair” trial. If they’d had any sense they never would have even announced his capture, he’d be living in a Navy brig in the middle of the Indian Ocean right now, having “pleasant conversations” with CIA interrogators. “Disappeared”.
This is all about perception now, and the perception of the Iraqi people and the rest of the Arab/Muslim world will be that these proceedings are simply a show. Theater to entertain, while moving towards a preordained outcome.
These come together thusly: It is perfectly fine and logical, in a world of limited resources, to have a policy of making humanitarian interventions based on a cost/benefit analysis. Just like attacking any set of problems: You take care of the most important ones first, and if you can you move on to the others.
BB, I am not disagreeing with you, but guess how that looks to the Arabic world? It looks like financial or other non-humanitarian reasons are the real reasons for actions with humanitarian reasons used as an excuse.
I’m not saying it is true, but it has been so easy for hateful media over there to twist the motives and actions of the US for decades. Maybe eventually there will be some other voices – perhaps after the smoke finally settles in Iraq we will have a moderate voice in the region? Will it be dismissed as a puppet regime if so?
Anyhow, as a lawyer, you are probably familiar with the principle that not only must justice be done, but it must be seen to be done…
tme,
I know what a kangaroo court is. I should have been more clear - why do you think the Iraqi court is a kangaroo court?
Vroom,
You make a good point about perception of justice. But I must ask, at what point do we stop trying so hard to cater to the Arab street?
The responsibility to present an honest process and a just, independent system is ours - but at some point, the responsibility of perception is with the Arab street itself to quit making excuses and hold themselves accountable for their lot. We can’t convince them if they don’t want to hear it.
In other words, I think that if a free, independent Iraq should emerge, there is a slim chance, in the short run, other Arab nations will ever view it as legitimate - I hope I am wrong. I hope a democratic Iraq begins the process of organic reform. But Arab culture is not known for its ability to ‘think outside the box’.
Interesting question. Although I think that we rushed in unprepared and without support, I do think that Saddam was a horrible dictator, and he deserves to be punished.
What is so interesting is the media parade. Bush’s own people have said on TV that they feel like this will boost GW’s ratings. And they will fill the news with constant images of his atrocities, for which Bush will gladly accept credit for ridding the world of that monster. Apparently though they didn’t mind doing lots of business with him even after he massacred thousands of Kurds. So clearly the “humanitarian” reasons for removing Saddam were just a coincidental side effect to Bush’s real intentions.
Don’t get me wrong in any way. Saddam must be brought to justice. There is no doubt of his crimes.
You make a good point about perception of justice. But I must ask, at what point do we stop trying so hard to cater to the Arab street?
Thunder, I don’t think I really have an answer for that.
I don’t know how much we’ve ever tried to catar to the Arab street. Has that concept even entered into the decision making process yet? If so, how can we tell?
Much less seriously…
However, on a cost benefit analysis we do know that we’ll spend billions more dollars and at least hundreds of lives to go in somewhere else.
No, wait, I’m not getting all weepy and bleeding heart on you.
Maybe it would be cheaper just to bomb the region into the stone age every ten or fifteen years unless it decides to comply fully and completely with disarmament and humanitarian requirements. We’d still be hated and be the targets of terrorism, but it would cost less, a lot less.
Heck, lets get the public involved, set up bombing booths where anyone of voting age can play armchair general. We can install an armchair, some crosshairs that will allow one to pick only a military target, and a big red button.
These could be set up in malls, bars and corner stores to really make sure everyone gets to participate in striking back at the enemies of America. Have them take five dollar bills per attack – help defray the cost of the war. This way all the game playing wannabe’s can put their calloused thumbs to good use.
This way, everybody wins…
One BIG problem with the liberals on herE and other places is that they forgot that the President declared war on ALL terrorism shortly after Sept.11. And the country applauded!!!..it was never stated that we were JUST going after AlQueida!!! It was ALL TERRORISM!! What is it about this concept that baffles the left?
The reality is that going into Iraq was the PERFECT thing to do! It drew the terrorists out of their holes so we could smackem down!! Don’t you see this??..by attracting them to Iraq…they make an easier target than the hills of Afghanistan or other countries! Its BRILLIANT!!!
“Wonder how Bush would respond to that kind of thing?”
That’s a stupid hypothetical, don’t you think?"
40% of Iraqis think they should let Saddam go free.
Halliburton subsidiary Kellog Brown & Root was doing business with Saddam illegally, during the embargo years. I’m sure that Saddam will have plenty of embarassing things to say that will embarrass the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations.
I love the moral relativism behind the “realpolitik” justification for the US arming violent dictators.
Hey Colonel Don
Ann Coulter’s latest column claims that “The Democrats want Saddam back.”
What a coincidence, you and Ann Coulter have the same opinion. I guess crackpots think alike?
Or maybe you are reading the same Republican talking points memo that she reads.
I can’t wait until the sane factions in the Republican party wrest the controls away from the Limbaughs, Bushes, Falwells and Coulters in the party.