CIA: Iraq not a threat to U.S. unless provoked.

[Ned]

By the way St. Marcus, I believe you misstated the U.S. position on the ICC. We have never stated that we do not want U.S. war criminals tried, we just don't want them to be tried by ICC.

In actual fact, we do try to accused war criminals in U.S. courts. Lt. Callie was tried for My Lai.

Further, we are highly suspicious of politically motivated prosecutions particularly in view of the complaints filed against Kissinger for Argentina and against Clinton Kosovo.

[GePap]

Well, Fez out, and some informative info in... the thread has done good. I had never seen the declaration of War v Germany. Where did you find it Slowwhand?

All of saddam's actions up to now have been 'rational', if not ethical:

He is a dictator ruling with the backing of a small minority of the population, giving them power while the vast majority has none. In that scenerio, horribly and violently crushing any opposition with any means available is key to maintain power. This is a simple and obvious calculation for anyone who wants to hold power. Why not use chem weapons against internal rebels, when the Iraqi army had integrated them into its line of battle aftre the war with iran? What, it would have been nicer if he had killed all these Kurds the old fashion way, like they d in poorer states- go in, shoot or machete everyone to death then burn the village? 'Yeah., as long as its not WMD..."

In 1980, his much larger and once more powerful neighbor falls into the throws of a revolution, many army officers killed or flee, the army in disarray, the state is now alone, without the backing of either major power: so saddam moves in to 'readjust' the borders and gain control of valuable waterways Iraq may have always wanted but simply could not ever get as long as the Shah was washingtons pet. Thats not irrational, thats very rational: enemy and power competitor now in chaos- take advantage!

In 1990: Saddam owes Kuwait 100 billion dollars for expenses during a war (Iraq owes the Saudis as much or more),that some estimates put at costing half to one trillion. the Kuwaitis (no princes of democracy, as they were protrayed) want their money back, but at the same time, they overproduce oil, cutting prices per barrel, and thus weaken iraq's ability to repay. So, after checking with the US [Iraq hinted to the US it might invade in mid-1990. The US envoy believed he had made clear the US would not allow an invasion. The Iraqis believed that the US envoy had not objected to the idea] and thus Iraq invaded, which, if it had worked, would have been a huge boon for iraq, as it woul instantly remove a 100 billion dollar debt and get more money to pay other debts, rebuild, and increase the army, Saddams intrument of power.

If Saddam has always acted rationally, for a blood thirsty dictator, why would he stop being rational now?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
In actual fact, we do try to accused war criminals in U.S. courts. Lt. Callie was tried for My Lai.

While Calley was definately a responsible party, it should be noted that the army prosecuted him not so much because he was guilty but because they had no choice. The evidence was overwhelming and could not be denied. Higher ranking officers who were also responsible were let off the hook, as were the men who committed the attrocity. And of course, he was pardoned. He's now an insurance salesman in Virginia (at least as of two years ago).

The only other war criminal we're tried (that I'm aware of) is the commander of Andersonville after the Civil War. The US, is of course, aware of many of its war crimes, since it orders them. Kissinger's ass would be grass if the ICC could ever get it's hands on him, as would every president that's still living. That's why we're opposed to the ICC. Cuz we're guilty as hell.

[Boris Godunov]

I thought I read that the U.S. soldiers who massacred the Waffen SS troops at Dachau were tried, weren't they?

[chequita guevara]

Like I wrote, that I'm aware of.

[Ned]

Originally posted by GePap
Well, Fez out, and some informative info in... the thread has done good. I had never seen the declaration of War v Germany. Where did you find it Slowwhand?

All of saddam's actions up to now have been 'rational', if not ethical:

He is a dictator ruling with the backing of a small minority of the population, giving them power while the vast majority has none. In that scenerio, horribly and violently crushing any opposition with any means available is key to maintain power. This is a simple and obvious calculation for anyone who wants to hold power. Why not use chem weapons against internal rebels, when the Iraqi army had integrated them into its line of battle aftre the war with iran? What, it would have been nicer if he had killed all these Kurds the old fashion way, like they d in poorer states- go in, shoot or machete everyone to death then burn the village? 'Yeah., as long as its not WMD..."

In 1980, his much larger and once more powerful neighbor falls into the throws of a revolution, many army officers killed or flee, the army in disarray, the state is now alone, without the backing of either major power: so saddam moves in to 'readjust' the borders and gain control of valuable waterways Iraq may have always wanted but simply could not ever get as long as the Shah was washingtons pet. Thats not irrational, thats very rational: enemy and power competitor now in chaos- take advantage!

In 1990: Saddam owes Kuwait 100 billion dollars for expenses during a war (Iraq owes the Saudis as much or more),that some estimates put at costing half to one trillion. the Kuwaitis (no princes of democracy, as they were protrayed) want their money back, but at the same time, they overproduce oil, cutting prices per barrel, and thus weaken iraq's ability to repay. So, after checking with the US [Iraq hinted to the US it might invade in mid-1990. The US envoy believed he had made clear the US would not allow an invasion. The Iraqis believed that the US envoy had not objected to the idea] and thus Iraq invaded, which, if it had worked, would have been a huge boon for iraq, as it woul instantly remove a 100 billion dollar debt and get more money to pay other debts, rebuild, and increase the army, Saddams intrument of power.

If Saddam has always acted rationally, for a blood thirsty dictator, why would he stop being rational now?

GePap, you might also want and that Saddam had earlier settled a border dispute with Iran when Iran threatened to invade during time the Shah when Iran was backed by the full power of the United States of America. Of course, Saddam was not happy with the settlement and took the first opportunity presented to make some adjustments.

In this, and in his dispute with Kuwait where he had a arguable territorial claim dating from the days of the Turkish Empire, Saddam was acting exactly as did Hitler in undoing adverse treaties and re-adjusting borders based on historical claims.

If Saddam is to be excused, so is Hitler. Let's not have a double standard here GePap.

[uh Clem]

Saddam was acting like practically everybody else in history in that particular example. It's the least of his crimes.

Look up how the US acquired California. It wasn't based on a vote by the local inhabitants.

[Ned]

uh Clem, are you putting the glorious President Polk in the same class as the brutal, mass-murdering Hitler and Saddam Hussein?

[David Floyd]

I dunno, are you actually calling James K Polk "glorious"?

[uh Clem]

Originally posted by Ned
uh Clem, are you putting the glorious President Polk in the same class as the brutal, mass-murdering Hitler and Saddam Hussein?

The same class? Yes, it's called "expansionist." Like about a zillion other guys in history.

It's noteworthy that when Saddam began his war with Iran, he wasn't a "brutal, mass-murdering" dictator in the eyes of Washington. Reagan's emissary to re-establish relations with Baghdad was one Donald Rumsfeld. Today, Rummy likes to pound the podium in indignation about Saddam, but in 1983 Iraqi television showed a smiling, genial Rumsfeld shaking hands with the Evil One himself. Very interesting, especially when one considers that, for the most part, Saddam's worst behavior was during the years that he was a US client. So why the indignation now?

Ditto for Cheney, another who enjoys listing all of Hitler Jr's crimes, but who had nothing against doing business (lots of it) with Saddam when Cheney was CEO at Halliburton.

Maybe Saddam is everything the administration says he is. To me, the much more interesting question is what is the administration really after (and why), since the case they've built against Saddam is so bogus and insulting to people's intelligence that it's not even meant to be taken seriously.

[Ned]

Originally posted by David Floyd
I dunno, are you actually calling James K Polk "glorious"?

Yes. He did more for the US than most presidents. Without California, we would not be even remotely the nation we are today.

[Chris 62]

Originally posted by Arrian
Chris,
Your turn on responding to Marcus. I don't have the energy.

Be quiet Marky-Mark!

I guess our disagreement comes down to 2 things:

1) You do think Saddam is insane - or at least irrational enough to actually use WoMD against us (or give to terrorists for use against us). I don't.
2) You seem to think that might makes right. I don't.

Yes to the first, no to the second.
If I thought that, then I would not be an American, our nation and all my beliefs are based on the rights of man.
Unlike some people, like the fellow directly above me for example, I don't believe the case agaisnt Iraq is laughable or shoddy, on the contray, it's dangerous naveite' to assume that all the US government is, is a pack of lying cuttroats.
This "Vietnam era" mentality still pervades American society, we are becomeing infected with the "do nothing, hope it goes away" desease that our erstwhile allies now display at every opprotunity.

Let me ask you this: If Saddam lets the UN weapons inspectors back in and complies with their requests and basically plays by the rules, do you still think we should invade and change the regime? I ask that because it sure seems that Bush & Co. are hell bent on invading and regime change no matter what happens with the WoMD inspection issue.

No, it that case, but do you really believe inspectors will accomplish anything?
It was tried for years and was stoned walled, this is the crux of Bush's postion, the idea that to turn back the clock to 98 is satisfactory.
I have seen the new inspector proposal the Swedish fellow presented, it's no-nonsense and quite through.
It remains to be seen if Saddam will try his usual shell game.
I believe the Bushies want it made clear that the moment he tries, he is finished.

[MichaeltheGreat]

One week vacation to Fez for being Fez. (threadjacks, rants, insults.)

Do it again, Fez, and it'll be double. One more after that, and see you next year. Maybe. Comprendes?

[orange]

James Polk was an excellent president if only for his honesty. He told people what he would do when elected. He did exactly what he said he'd do when elected. And he stepped down when he would have easily been reelected (granted he died shortly after...but still)

[Ned]

Orange, when my daughter was studying history in HS, they never discussed Polk in school. It was almost as if his presidency did not exist. At best students learn that an evil United States stole California from Mexico as a result of a trumped-up war solely to get the gold.

Go West, young man. Go West!