The Ur-Quan Masters Discussion Forum

so does anyone really think this will have any out come on future terrorism? me,  id rather see osma bin lodin behind bars. but then again it might make things worse. what do you say?

~DEFIANT

I'd say that politics is a dangerous subject when you've got as many nations on the forum as this one has, frankly :)

yhea, maybe your right ;) but its still interesting to see how points of view, reflect, from one county to the next. other countries, may have differnt views, but at least we are all human. :)

~DEFIANT

Since I live in Israel, what I can say is: Every terrorist we arrest/kill/exile/ just stop him is good. But since I got missles on my head in the Golf War, I prefer Saddam in prision/electrical chair soon.

Living in the U.S., it was interesting to see the comedians' take on things early on.  David Letterman had one joke that I thought was funny (no longer on his website):

Paraphrased from memory:

Dave: "Saddam's capture gives some political backing to the current administration for next year's election, and I was wondering what kind of spin the Democrats might put on it until I saw this campaign commercial:"
[picture of unshaven saddam on the screen (bushy white beard)]
Generic Announcer: "The Bush administration revealed that they are holding a man in custody that they _claim_ is Saddam..."
"Or is he?"
[picture of unshaven saddam on the screen (bushy white beard) - with added, hand-drawn red coat and red pointy hat with white fur trim]
"Bush Arrested Santa"
[picture of Howard Dean]
"Vote Howard Dean for President"

That joke pokes fun at everyone involved. :)

Funny how it goes... I stopped posting when topics like this were fiercely debated - now I'm back and we're talking politics again  ;D

Can't say that I don't like it. Otherwise, I'm just glad to be back!

Greetings to all fellow Earthlings (yes, yes: and the Alliance Members...)

[P.S.: My Lord, Osgiliath is overrun!]

welcome back... as you can see, weve got ourselfves a new place to ponder out thoughts. its a nice change of events around here. i like it :)

~DEFIANT



good old dave letterman. hes a funny guy. i do love his top 10 list. another show to watch for its political satire is "saturday night live". some of dana carey's "bush/senior" imatations are really funny. he even got invited to a luncheon with the old president, to do his char impersonation. funny stuff.

~DEFIANT

Try this:

You know that google.com is a pretty good search routine.

Try entering the following sentence:

miserable failure

and do a random search. What pops up? (Even if you search the net normally, the first site shown is quite a surprise!)

Going back on topic here (despite GM's best tries to steer us towards miserable failures), it'll certainly be interesting to see what kind of impact (if any) this has on the Iraqi resistance. Will this take the fight out of them, will it enrage them further, or will it have no effect?

Same shit here anyway..... people keep exploding on us.

Maybe you should ceck the nest before date on them? Could be, they get too old, left out in al lthat sun, well POOF! Freshness and hygene are important.

But that really has nothing to do with the saddam situation. Israel is a topic all in itself, if you want it discussed, I'd recommend opening anew topic for it. otherwise this'll just degenerate into a shoutfest.

Yes you are right, but you are wrong too. It has a major effect about the situation here, he is "a god for them"(I think these were the words the News Reporter used...) But if you want to stay in Iraq, fine.

all the talk i hear of in the usa, is tha americans are still dying. at least one a day. i do support my troops, but this lack of any real evidence of "weapons of mass destruction" really makes me think this war is just a father/son fued (bush/bush jr).

"look at me daddy, i did what you couldnt do in your 4 year term!"

this leads me down another topic, limiting one person from a family to becoming president. so this so called "bush" dynasty would not happen. but thats just my opinion.

~DEFIANT

Americans are still dying, but at this point there really isnt an alternative, sadly enough. It is impossible for the US tio pull out at this stage, seeing as that would plunge a country they have taken responsibility for into darkness and oblivion.

While the price you folks pay is high, it is the only thing you can do right now.

As for the dynasty question, I don't think there is anything wrong with building a dynasty. The problem with them are just the same as with all monarchies. Some rulers are good, others not quite so brilliant. And you never know what you are going to get.

That would put a big damper on Senetor Clinton's desires for the presidency.  Don't forget that there were a few "Dynasties" in the formative years of the U.S.A.  They weren't real dynasties, since they were seperated in years, and the "father" presidents weren't placing their sons into office via excecutive order.

thats very true, but it still doesn't give the avarage american any real chance at being president. unless your born into wealth and politics, your out of luck. not that i care to run a county, but it would be nice to see someone other than a "family" run a country. the only reason bush jr got elected, was that he has his daddys name to carry him along. and the other guy, that ran agianst him, wasnt much good either. the usa is moved so much by money, greed and too much corrption at the highest levels of politics. this i believe to be true in the light of recent events, witness through out my life. dont get me wrong, i love my freedom, but i think sometimes, the price is too high...

~DEFIANT  

Saddam was a symbol of opposition against the US, A hero for the terrorists. When he was captured and his sad state shown for all to see, I believe, that  demoralized the terrorists. Since the amount of attacks on US targets dropped about 30% after the capture; it was a good thing. I don't really care about the lack of the Weapons of Mass Destruction.  Right now all those terrorists that would be ramming planes into building are now fighting US troops and that is all the justification I need.  So far about 500 troops have died but 3000+ died on 911. (Correct me if I got those numbers wrong) If I could I would join the US troops fighting and dieing in Iraq.

Fundamentalist terrorist groups had no friend in Saddam Hussein; for years they openly accused him of working to undermine Islam.  Remember that he fought a long and bloody war against an Islamic theocracy in the 1980s.  I sincerely doubt that the fall of Baghdad was a sad day in terrorist circles.

When Saddam Hussein was captured, parading him around on television was a direct violation of the Geneva Convention rules regarding treatment of prisoners of war.  Remember the stink we made when the Iraqis put our airmen on state TV during the first Gulf War?  The word I'm looking for is "hypocrisy".

At this point, to call the viewpoint that attacks have dropped "myopic" would be an understatement; simply put, not enough time has passed to make that assessment yet; I've read reports that attacks by insurgents have been stepped up since the capture, so I think any sentiment other than "we don't know yet" is pure speculation.  And even if there has been a 30% drop, it doesn't make me feel any better for the families of the 6 soldiers that were killed earlier today (http://news.google.com/url?ntc=0M0B0&q=http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/0104/28iraq.html) in another roadside bomb attack.

But the part that really floors me is the notion that it's a non-issue to you whether or not our rationale for invading a sovereign nation was a fabrication.  I would think that a cost of billions of dollars, thousands of lives, and a truly dangerous foreign policy precedent under utterly false pretenses would have people screaming to have the entire administration lined up and shot for treason; instead the sentiment is "so what?"  The length of this post notwithstanding, words fail me.

The USA did not sign the Geneva Convention.
isn't that scary?

For my "so what" additude about the WMD is because It was one of many reasons for the war. Poeple make mistakes it is part of what we are. Forgive and Forget.

If you want to start to talk about treason then lets talk about Bill Clinton's selling of Missle tech to China, and alot of other things that are just wrong. but forgive and forget and there is alot of forgiving to do where Bill Clinton is concerned.

And yet, when people in high places make mistakes that cost thousands of people their lives, forgiving is hard and forgetting not an option. By that logic, the terrorists that hit the WTC should be forgiven, and their acts forgotten. It doesn't quite wotrk that way, we all have to pay the consequences of our mistakes.

As for the rest, I agree 100% with Nic.

Hmm.  No, by that logic, the Pennsylvania 9/11 terrorists should be forgiven and forgotten, as they did not complete their mission.  The WTC and Pentagon attacks were not "mistakes", they did precisely what they set out to do.

A nitpick mostly, as it leaves the core of your assertion intact, but an important distinction nonetheless.

Well the terrorists DID seceed in part of their mission - killing civilians. On that plane I think was about ?110? So there were consequences - just not as big.

Let's consider quickly the question of whether these missiles will ever be fired at the US. Hmm. We have Nukes. If they use them on us, they die.

We survived forty years of nuclear standoff with the Soviets, because nuclear deterrence works.

This does not mean it was a good idea, but it does mean that the actual harm caused by it may very well end up being nonexistent.

I was thinking more of along the lines of

"The invasion of iraq was a mistake, based on incorrect military information and possibly administration lies about the WMD danger"

compared to

"The WTC strike was a mistake based on incorrect theological intelligence and possibly lies about the godless US"

Both things suceeded, but it doesn't necessarily mean they weren't mistakes. The US did exactly what it set out to do (overthrow Hussein), yet we are calling that a mistake. Just as the Taleban did what they said out do, and we call that a mistake as well.

I was not saying Invading iraq was a mistake. I was saying the intell on WMD was mistaken. You cannot blame bush for the CIA's mistake. And it has yet to cost THOUSANDs of lives. Also the other reasons for going into iraq are still valid.
The 911 attacks where not a mistake but a act of terrorist order by osama bin ladan.

The missles may never be fired but poeple gave there lives to keep those secrets out of chinas hands and bill clinton just gives it to them for campaign contributions.

It's true that China wont use the missiles, but unfortunately the concept of nuclear deterrence requires mostly-equal levels of arms.  Hence the arms-race.  If A gets B's tech, B has to spend more money on arms development and construction, especially if B's tech allows A to develop countermeasures (anti-nuke rockets, SDI lasers).

Oh, and WMD _have_ been found in Iraq,  they were buried back in the time of the last Iran-Iraq war, but they were still chemical artillary shells (not empty).  That suggests a history of hiding WMD, and they probably used more sophisticated methods more recently.
Mobile production facilities were also found, although there were no biological or chemical contaminants;  either someone cleaned them and forgot to put that in the UN report, or someone cleaned them and purposefully didn't put that information into the UN report.  It's very unlikely that the mobile facilities were created and never used.

I honestly think that the time President Bush took to talk to the U.N. allowed Saddam time to hide his WMD and chemical weapons. (Though I don't approve of going into a country without talking to other countrys) It was just a lose-lose situation for the US.

Oh really?  Are our smart bombs so amazingly accurate that we managed to invade a country, destroy its army and overthrow its government without a single casualty on the other side?  Have all the insurgent attacks on civilian targets and forces seen to be cooperating with the occupying forces been carried out without a single death?

Oh, I get it.  To you, non-Americans obviously don't count.  That is in itself quite telling.

I don’t count enemy combatants and this war has set a record for the lowest in civilian casualties.
Also nice try to make me look like the evil villain

The reason for this war was to liberate Iraq from a dictator who has, among other thing, used chemical weapons on his own people. The reason the why the coalition was limited to the US, UK, Spain, Italy, Poland, Australia, and many more, was because in the last Iraqi war The Arab member would not allow The US to remove a fellow Dictator. Why France, Germany and Russia were not part of the coalition is because they did not want their illegal trade agreements, with Iraq, to be known to the world.
The Weapons of mass destruction, as I have said many times, was one of MANY reasons for the war not the main one. If I found out that Saddam was not an Evil dictator who committed countless atrocities against his own people, and that his own people did not in fact fear and despise him, then and only then would I be against the war.

Funny that France, Germany, etc didn't want their illegal trade agreements known -- we're talking about them quite candidly.

As for Nic's comment, it was a little sharp... but you're the one who glossed over that though this war may have been low on civilian casualties for a war, it was still pretty rough comparatively speaking. It'll take quite a few years before the average level of oppression by Saddam would have added up to the quick burst of death and dismemberment associated with the war.

Didn't Germany send some troops? (reluctantly)

I think 10+ years were quite enough.

You underestimate the power of a dictator.
How many did Hitler and Stalin kill? More then can be stored in a 24 bit integer.
How many has Saddam killed? We may never know.

No

I thought that it was because they wanted their debts repaid, and they were of the belief that a newly established government in Iraq would not assume the debts of Saddam's regime.


Not sure what the numbers are, but I'm certain someone out there is counting (wasn't there a casualty-o-meter on the web?).  Add the numbers from the gassing of the Kurds, politcal mass-graves, Iran/Iraq war(s), Desert Storm (invading kuwait made him the aggressor), divide by those number of years.  Then compare to the casualties of this war (include current peacekeeping casualties if you like) divided by the time it has taken so far.  Then, even if there is an imbalance in favor of Saddam causing fewer casualties per hour, consider that Saddam's killing would have continued into his death, and then one of his twisted sons would have probably taken over, so there _would_ have been quite a few years of Saddam's opression.

The debts caused by their illegal trade agreements

Not disputing that, just pointing out that there was a reason associated with them, even if everyone already knew about them.

Anyone - even if they have trouble connecting the dots can figure out that something fishy went on between France, Germany and a few other countrys.  

here's my two cents - for what it's worth

The question that needs to be asked - preferably of the powers that be - is when are these 'people' going to grow up and behave like sensible adults? You killed us years ago, we're going to kill you now. Fine.
You killed us years ago, we killed you then, then you killed us, then we killed you - and so on unto extinction.
One word - pointless. Ideology, theology and/or treaty(s) have never been the real reasons. Try greed, vengeance and small-mindedness. Misanthropia is a very understandable concept, and always has been.

Here endeth the rant.

Bit like drudging a two year old thread to simply make the point "people are stupid"?

Although lookign back at this thread (and others) feels quite ironic at this stage. A lot of people were way to hopeful when the invasion began, expecting the rebuilding to be quick and easy, rather than the quagmire it has become.