I am anti war. You stupid evil scum are pro Saddam.
-- On 19 Dec 2003 at 22:23, Anonymous wrote:
Re saddam et all... http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EL19Ak01.html
The war of words over Saddam & Bush is quite amusing. The blind faith in ones govt structure and the willingness to support force that is in such extreme measure overpowering and statist such as the dropping of tons of depleted uranium high explosives shows that some on this list have not broadened their news reading beyond fox news.
I am anti war. You lot are pro Saddam. Back in the sixties, there were lots of good reasons to oppose the Vietnam war, notably that it was fought by conscription, and that McNamara's search for measures of war fighting efficiency and to create incentives for efficient production of war effort were demoralizing the troops, and instead of creating incentives to fight effectively, created perverse incentives to commit mass murder in place of killing the enemy. But instead the opponents wound up chanting 'ho, ho, ho Chi Minh" Ho Chi Minh was a senior KGB agent, who after spending ten years behind a desk in Moscow organizing the murder of Indochinese nationalists was sent from Moscow to rule what became North Vietnam. He purged 85% of the communist party, murdering a large but unknown proportion of them, and conducted a terror against the peasants of extraordinary savagery. And now the guys on this list are weeping big salt tears about poor victimized Saddam. Anyone who opposed the war on Vietnam should have started off by asking "How shall we contain the Soviet Union and eventually defeat communism, and what is wrong with the way this administration is doing it. Similarly anyone who opposes the war in Iraq should start by visualizing himself as the heir of King John Sobieski, not the heir of Saladin. Anyone opposing the war in Iraq needs oppose it from the point of view that Americans and their way of life should win, deserve to win, and the raghead fanatics should lose, and their way of life perish. Anyone who wants to argue that the guys in the two towers had it coming, and poor Saddam is a victim, puts himself in the corner with the people who are stupid, evil, and losers. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG XwnNnDWaFm4T8flPHGpKzyaV4jg8/RzK3pUzhOzQ 4+xdZmD79Z+1bt+2a7gG1vL9K6V53m4xxeoRxCt4p
I don't know who you are referring too, but that comment is amusing, because it is exactly the kind of lambaste broadside that one hears on Faux news channel all the time. Anyway, I say that Saddam has human rights, just like everyone else, which includes due process, right to counsel, and to face your accusers in an open court that has legitimate authority to find you innocent or guilty. The US is clearly and wrongly doing the opposite of this, and if this makes me pro-Saddam, then I will wear the label proudly. Regards, proclus http://www.gnu-darwin.org/ -- Visit proclus realm! http://proclus.tripod.com/ -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GMU/S d+@ s: a+ C++++ UBOULI++++$ P+ L+++(++++) E--- W++ N- !o K- w--- !O M++@ V-- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP-- t+++(+) 5+++ X+ R tv-(--)@ b !DI D- G e++++ h--- r+++ y++++ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ [demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type APPLICATION/pgp-signature]
proclus@gnu-darwin.org (2003-12-21 03:50Z) wrote:
I don't know who you are referring too, but that comment is amusing, because it is exactly the kind of lambaste broadside that one hears on Faux news channel all the time. Anyway, I say that Saddam has human rights, just like everyone else, which includes due process, right to counsel, and to face your accusers in an open court that has legitimate authority to find you innocent or guilty. The US is clearly and wrongly doing the opposite of this, and if this makes me pro-Saddam, then I will wear the label proudly.
How can we offer him procedural guarantees enjoyed by U.S. residents when we won't be the ones conducting procedure at his trial? He's going to be tried in the ICC or by Iraqis in Iraqi courts. We have no good evidence that he's committed crimes against Americans, and unless we find some, I don't think that anyone would want him anywhere near a Federal courtroom. McRumsfeld and co. should be held accountable if they violate the Geneva Convention with respect to Saddam or any other prisoner. But the procedural guarantees you talk about are attached to U.S. trials, which Saddam will not enjoy (or dread, depending...). -- I am a carnivorous fish swimming in #+# Banking establishments are two waters, the cold water of art and -*+ more dangerous than standing the hot water of science. - S. Dali #-# armies. - Thomas Jefferson
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
I don't know who you are referring too, but that comment is amusing, because it is exactly the kind of lambaste broadside that one hears on Faux news channel all the time. Anyway, I say that Saddam has human rights, just like everyone else, which includes due process, right to counsel, and to face your accusers in an open court that has legitimate authority to find you innocent or guilty. The US is clearly and wrongly doing the opposite of this, and if this makes me pro-Saddam, then I will wear the label proudly.
How can we offer him procedural guarantees enjoyed by U.S. residents when we won't be the ones conducting procedure at his trial? He's going to be tried in the ICC or by Iraqis in Iraqi courts. We have no good evidence that he's committed crimes against Americans, and unless we find some, I don't think that anyone would want him anywhere near a Federal courtroom.
He won't be put in front of the ICC as the US never signed on to it. So this one is out. That leaves either an American Tribunal or an Iraqi one. In either case they should adhere to US procedures as they are based on them.
McRumsfeld and co. should be held accountable if they violate the Geneva Convention with respect to Saddam or any other prisoner. But the procedural guarantees you talk about are attached to U.S. trials, which Saddam will not enjoy (or dread, depending...).
See above. Because of the possiblity that either Rumsfled & friends might end up in front of the ICC they never signed off on it. Michael -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBP+WcnGlCnxcrW2uuEQKsaACgiPD6Kbq/WN0qTL2eDyllk8QBC+0AoIxa SboDJZtx5bUh6IrVFc9PShmh =Hkgx -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On 21 Dec, Michael Kalus wrote:
I don't know who you are referring too, but that comment is amusing, because it is exactly the kind of lambaste broadside that one hears on Faux news channel all the time. Anyway, I say that Saddam has human rights, just like everyone else, which includes due process, right to counsel, and to face your accusers in an open court that has legitimate authority to find you innocent or guilty. The US is clearly and wrongly doing the opposite of this, and if this makes me pro-Saddam, then I will wear the label proudly.
How can we offer him procedural guarantees enjoyed by U.S. residents when we won't be the ones conducting procedure at his trial? He's going to be tried in the ICC or by Iraqis in Iraqi courts. We have no good evidence that he's committed crimes against Americans, and unless we find some, I don't think that anyone would want him anywhere near a Federal courtroom.
He won't be put in front of the ICC as the US never signed on to it. So this one is out.
That leaves either an American Tribunal or an Iraqi one. In either case they should adhere to US procedures as they are based on them.
Yes, but I think Justin is mistaking my meaning. In order for the trial to be fair and valid, it must adhere to certain standards, some of which I enumerated. They are not necessarily US procedures, per se. Based on these discussions, I think it is clear that the war crimes tribunal should be composed of elected Iraqi judges. This would have the advantage of adding democratic legitimacy to the process so that the result would be widely accepted, something terribly lacking in any proceeding under US auspices. Moreover, this solution addresses US exceptions to the international courts as well, since the case would be heard in US-occupied Iraq. Regards, proclus http://www.gnu-darwin.org/ -- Visit proclus realm! http://proclus.tripod.com/ -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GMU/S d+@ s: a+ C++++ UBULI++++$ P+ L+++(++++) E--- W++ N- !o K- w--- !O M++@ V-- PS+++ PE Y+ PGP-- t+++(+) 5+++ X+ R tv-(--)@ b !DI D- G e++++ h--- r+++ y++++ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ [demime 0.97c removed an attachment of type APPLICATION/pgp-signature]
At 08:14 AM 12/21/2003 -0500, Michael Kalus wrote:
He won't be put in front of the ICC as the US never signed on to it. So this one is out. That leaves either an American Tribunal or an Iraqi one. In either case they should adhere to US procedures as they are based on them.
But this isn't an American war or occupation. It's a war by the Allies, including the US, Great Britain, and the Coalition Of the Willing, and the UK and most of the COWs are responsible for bringing this to the ICC. That means it's either the Iraqis that get to try Saddam and hang him, or else the Americans have to pretend that they weren't pretending that this was an international effort. (Did Iraq join the ICC?)
-- On 21 Dec 2003 at 13:13, Bill Stewart wrote:
But this isn't an American war or occupation. It's a war by the Allies, including the US, Great Britain, and the Coalition Of the Willing, and the UK and most of the COWs are responsible for bringing this to the ICC.
For this to be true, most of the coalition would be nations that agreed to UN becoming a world government. Somehow I doubt it. The ICC has no legitimacy. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG MVU3HFcf4zBO8SGAeAoleCnLt+ySdaD9K5ITh4lJ 4HGnXPUOhSyzJ+wUkY0TdY99yKRck7IifD3Hly1iA
Michael Kalus (2003-12-21 13:14Z) wrote:
How can we offer him procedural guarantees enjoyed by U.S. residents when we won't be the ones conducting procedure at his trial? He's going to be tried in the ICC or by Iraqis in Iraqi courts. We have no good evidence that he's committed crimes against Americans, and unless we find some, I don't think that anyone would want him anywhere near a Federal courtroom.
He won't be put in front of the ICC as the US never signed on to it. So this one is out.
That leaves either an American Tribunal or an Iraqi one. In either case they should adhere to US procedures as they are based on them.
As Bill Stuart pointed out, this is not an American war. This is a war (or so the U.S. claims) based on alleged violation of an agreement between Iraq and the UN. It seems to me that American Courts or American Tribunals have no authority to preside over Saddam's case in general. I don't think anyone wants to try Saddam for crimes over which the U.S. might have jurisdiction. There's likely a much better case that he killed various subordinates, or that he gave orders to murder a bunch of Kurds, or that he murdered various people in his ascent into power, than there is that he offered material support to Al Qaeda or some other terrorist group. Even if such a U.S. law-based prosecution were to be pursued, clearly there are serious international law issues. Saddam was not some rag-tag nation-less scoundrel. Even if he was directly involved in terrorism, I would think the only way to prosecute him for any such crimes would be in some international court, because he was essentially sovereign. Please explain why an Iraqi court must give Saddam U.S. style procedural rights, because I don't understand. I know you said "should", but what does that mean if not "must"? The U.S. has no influence on Iraqi judicial proceedings, or at least it shouldn't. Appeals to ethics don't mean anything when one talks about a different culture. -- I am a carnivorous fish swimming in #+# Banking establishments are two waters, the cold water of art and -*+ more dangerous than standing the hot water of science. - S. Dali #-# armies. - Thomas Jefferson
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
As Bill Stuart pointed out, this is not an American war. This is a war (or so the U.S. claims) based on alleged violation of an agreement between Iraq and the UN. It seems to me that American Courts or American Tribunals have no authority to preside over Saddam's case in general. I don't think anyone wants to try Saddam for crimes over which the U.S. might have jurisdiction. There's likely a much better case that he killed various subordinates, or that he gave orders to murder a bunch of Kurds, or that he murdered various people in his ascent into power, than there is that he offered material support to Al Qaeda or some other terrorist group.
I agree they should. But this war was not sanctioned by the UN, nor did the US ratify the ICC. Sure, the British and spanish and Italian where along for the ride, but the US Administration made it clear several times that THEY are going to call the shots on Iraq.
Even if such a U.S. law-based prosecution were to be pursued, clearly there are serious international law issues. Saddam was not some rag-tag nation-less scoundrel. Even if he was directly involved in terrorism, I would think the only way to prosecute him for any such crimes would be in some international court, because he was essentially sovereign.
Agreed.
Please explain why an Iraqi court must give Saddam U.S. style procedural rights, because I don't understand. I know you said "should", but what does that mean if not "must"? The U.S. has no influence on Iraqi judicial proceedings, or at least it shouldn't. Appeals to ethics don't mean anything when one talks about a different culture.
If the US is serious to establish a democracy in Iraq than this would also mean a reform of the Criminal Justice system. Most likely built on the "best" system in the world and that would make it the US one, no? M. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBP+Y6tWlCnxcrW2uuEQLOGACfeTsQ+8D5cD6Siz2km+1qp+K+57MAoN/f DMN1fZOIoWhYhRlXXKvgrNTW =zLGJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Michael Kalus (2003-12-22 00:28Z) wrote:
As Bill Stuart pointed out, this is not an American war. This is a war (or so the U.S. claims) based on alleged violation of an agreement between Iraq and the UN. It seems to me that American Courts or American Tribunals have no authority to preside over Saddam's case in general. I don't think anyone wants to try Saddam for crimes over which the U.S. might have jurisdiction. There's likely a much better case that he killed various subordinates, or that he gave orders to murder a bunch of Kurds, or that he murdered various people in his ascent into power, than there is that he offered material support to Al Qaeda or some other terrorist group.
I agree they should. But this war was not sanctioned by the UN, nor did the US ratify the ICC. Sure, the British and spanish and Italian where along for the ride, but the US Administration made it clear several times that THEY are going to call the shots on Iraq.
But the U.S. position since way before the war has been that this is not a bilateral conflict. That alone seems to invalidate any notion that the U.S. has sole jurisdiction over prosecutions stemming from the "war". Are you suggesting that we might try to get the ICC to handle Saddam's trial and that they'd refuse on the grounds that it was a Bush/Blair/Howard junta that went to war rather than an international coalition? It would be highly amusing if the ICC signatories were to say that, but I don't see it happening.
Please explain why an Iraqi court must give Saddam U.S. style procedural rights, because I don't understand. I know you said "should", but what does that mean if not "must"? The U.S. has no influence on Iraqi judicial proceedings, or at least it shouldn't. Appeals to ethics don't mean anything when one talks about a different culture.
If the US is serious to establish a democracy in Iraq than this would also mean a reform of the Criminal Justice system. Most likely built on the "best" system in the world and that would make it the US one, no?
Even if the United States wants to reform the Iraqi judicial system to incorporate most or all of U.S. rights (which really don't exist here anymore thanks to decades of creative work by the Supremes), I think that goal is orthogonal to the matter of how to treat Saddam. The Iraqi courts haven't been reformed yet. There's no Iraqi constitution, and the country isn't even sovereign, in the sense that there's no permanent system of authority or law. If Iraqi courts are to be used, do prisoners just have to sit around for years until the process generates a criminal justice system with adequate procedural guarantees? I would think that the current courts have to be used, regardless of what shape they're in. We really have no direct control over what goes on in Iraq. We can use diplomacy to try to influence what the governing council does, but it's the governing council that's creating a constitution. I'm really not sure what we'd do if the governing council were to come up with a constitution without the equivalent of our 4th-8th amendments. Would we march into the meeting chamber and kick everyone out, and seat military commanders at the table instead? Also, there's an existing (1968) constitution in Iraq, ignoring the post-coup modifications, and Saddam ignoring it for a few decades doesn't mean it's bad. I haven't read it in translation and I don't know Arabic, so I can't say what the old constitution guarantees in terms of criminal procedure. But allegedly it wasn't a terrible constitution, and it probably guarantees something. How much influence can we exert without turning Iraq into a U.S. territory? It's easy to argue that we've gone too far already by screening Governing Council members. Are you suggesting that Iraq should be a U.S. territory? If the Governing Council is a puppet, does it matter whether they have fair trials? I would think in that case that any trials they conducted would be invalid, even if no other countries were to object. Just because we're there and we're trying to set up a democracy that has some toleration for religious freedom and speech doesn't mean we have an obligation to turn Iraq into a puppet state and run U.S. trials for people who violated Iraqi law. -- I am a carnivorous fish swimming in #+# Banking establishments are two waters, the cold water of art and -*+ more dangerous than standing the hot water of science. - S. Dali #-# armies. - Thomas Jefferson
At 05:41 PM 12/20/2003 -0800, "James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
-- On 19 Dec 2003 at 22:23, Anonymous wrote:
Re saddam et all... http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EL19Ak01.html
The war of words over Saddam & Bush is quite amusing. The blind faith in ones govt structure and the willingness to support force that is in such extreme measure overpowering and statist such as the dropping of tons of depleted uranium high explosives shows that some on this list have not broadened their news reading beyond fox news.
I am anti war. You lot are pro Saddam.
That is quite a presumption there. "If you're not with US, you're with the terrorists", eh? Same old sorry ass script, dug up but unoriginal dullards as the boilerplate world domination scam. You know, the Nazis were just make the world safe for freedom, fighting those pesky Commies, and oh yeah, those "terrorists" who burned down the Reichstag... WTC-Reichstag 2. Same old story. Yep, just no decent boogymen, since the commies gave up the good fight. They tried replacing them with "the drug menace", but that never quite took the same way. People were yet too skeptical because too many people like gettin' high themselves. Oh ok, here we go kiddies on our neverland joyride interminable "war on terror". Oh yeah, that's a REAL good one, that'll keep the proles cowering for the protection of the feudal state's protection. O. Protect Me, Thine Lord, and I shall prostrate my ass to your minions at the airports! Pucker up to prove you don't a bomb hidden up yo ass, boy.
Back in the sixties, there were lots of good reasons to oppose the Vietnam war, notably that it was fought by conscription, and that McNamara's search for measures of war fighting efficiency and to create incentives for efficient production of war effort were demoralizing the troops, and instead of creating incentives to fight effectively, created perverse incentives to commit mass murder in place of killing the enemy.
But instead the opponents wound up chanting 'ho, ho, ho Chi Minh" Ho Chi Minh was a senior KGB agent, who after spending ten years behind a desk in Moscow organizing the murder of Indochinese nationalists was sent from Moscow to rule what became North Vietnam. He purged 85% of the communist party, murdering a large but unknown proportion of them, and conducted a terror against the peasants of extraordinary savagery.
"Uncle Ho" was the leader of the Indochinese resistance, leader of a popular anti-colonial nationalist movement (remember, Indochina was a French colony, before the Japanese seized it from them). The original viet cong tunnel complexes, dated back to the nationalist resistance movement which was fighting the Imperial Japanese occupation of Indochina. Eisenhower actually considered Ho to be a great ally in the region at the time, for giving the Japs such hell. After the War, however, the Frenchys wanted their old colony back so they could rape it some more of it's cheap natural resources, and well, Ho having fought the dickens out of the Japs, wasn't having any of it. Eventually the French gave up (ever hear of dienbienphu?) Then WE got involved in that mess (under the pretext of "anticommunism proxy warism"), and rather than just let them have their own country, killed a lot of peasants and made big defense contractors some mega money, before the Amerikan youth finally rebelled at being sent off to be slaughtered for defense contractor profiteering. Ho had actually admitted to being an avid admirer of the founding fathers of the US, I seem to recall.
And now the guys on this list are weeping big salt tears about poor victimized Saddam.
Saddam is irrelevant, and the real joke on US will be when we come to understand it. OK, whoopy-dee-do, "We Got Him!" (nevermind that WE MADE HIM, nevermind that we built up his bio-chem WMD proggies, to counter the reaction in Iran after our tyrant Shah THERE got his ass kicked out by the people). A CIA puppet who got out of control. Don't want to believe it, look for how he was part of a CIA team recruited to assassinate Kassem. He was useful while he did US bidding. Once he outlived his usefulness, we set him up ("the greenlighting of kuwait invasion, ala April Gillespie and Poppy Bush), so we had a great excuse to dump our obsolete inventories of older military hardware, as well as battle-test our latest weapons technologies at the same time. Chickens always come home to roost. This is the case with Saddam, same as it was for Bin Laden as well (another CIA Frankenstein, run amok on Master). Do you not see a PATTERN here, of building up and tearing down, and making monster profits every step of the way, and the hell with those useless eater peasants by the millions? Look at all the Panamanians we slaughtered, so Poppy Bush could "take out" a noncompliant Noriega, who was threatening to spill the sloppy details or Poppy's CIA cocaine trafficking. Silenced him real good, didn't we. Now he can talk to the wall in a Fed prison if he wants to talk...
Anyone who opposed the war on Vietnam should have started off by asking "How shall we contain the Soviet Union and eventually defeat communism, and what is wrong with the way this administration is doing it.
Similarly anyone who opposes the war in Iraq should start by visualizing himself as the heir of King John Sobieski, not the heir of Saladin. Anyone opposing the war in Iraq needs oppose it from the point of view that Americans and their way of life should win, deserve to win, and the raghead fanatics should lose, and their way of life perish.
Why the insecure need to dominate others? You think "American culture" has no flaws? You think Islam has nothing of value? Do you not see the logic of actions and reactions (and chain reactions ad infinitum)? Why should one have to dominate/annihilate the other? How about symbiosis? Coexistence? How about finding a balance where we become more self-sufficient, so that we do not need their oil, and therefore do not get "in their faces". You know, picking sides, like the Israeli-Palestinian mess. Oh yeah, I guess you just swallowed the Bush lie hook line and sinker about how they "did it because they hate our freedom". Oh yeah, well, Bush and Nazi Asscroft have taken the most important freedoms, and undermine daily anything left, so they shouldn't have any reason to hate us anymore. I'm surprised Bush didn't claim Osama got a bad burger once at the Riyadh McDonald's, and just then and there decided that we've just simply "got to be destroyed". Gotta stop watching so much TV, it's rotting your brain. You think the USA can do NO wrong, we ALWAYS have only the truly noblest intents, eh? Look at history, look at how we have related and treated others. Oh, sometimes we have done the right things, but at least as often if not more we have done the wrong things, to the tune of millions of dead foreign peasants usually. Look at all the genocidal CIA installed dictators... Suharto in Indonesia, Saddam... etc etc etc WHY THEY HATE US--DUH! http://www.ddh.nl/pipermail/wereldcrisis/2002-October/003148.html in particular: In the quotations collected below, the name of the leader who was assassinated is spelled variously as Qasim, Qassim and Kassem. But, however you spell his name, when he took power in a popularly-backed coup in 1958, he certainly got recognized in Washington. He carried out such anti-American and anti-corporatist policies as starting the process of nationalizing foreign oil companies in Iraq, withdrawing Iraq from the US-initiated right-wing Baghdad Pact (which included another military-run, US-puppet state, i.e., Pakistan) and decriminalizing the Iraqi Communist Party. Despite these actions, and more likely because of them, he was Iraq's most popular leader. He had to go! In 1959, there was a failed assassination attempt on Qasim. The failed assassin was none other than a young Saddam Hussein. In 1963, a CIA-organized coup did successfully assassinate Qasim and Saddam's Ba'ath Party came to power for the first time. Saddam returned from exile in Egypt and took up the key post as head of Iraq's secret service. The CIA then provided the new pliant, Iraqi regime with the names of thousands of communists, and other leftist activists and organizers. Thousands of these supporters of Qasim and his policies were soon dead in a rampage of mass murder carried out by the CIA's close friends in Iraq.
Anyone who wants to argue that the guys in the two towers had it coming, and poor Saddam is a victim, puts himself in the corner with the people who are stupid, evil, and losers.
The people in the Towers were innocent victims, like most palestinians in the occupied territories, like oppressed peasants everywhere, and any and all "collateral casualties" to our militarist ventures and CIA-coup-installed-corporate friendly dictators. And if the "people" in the US will not face the reality of what our "illustrious" leaders in Washington inflict upon others around the world, then we will unfortunately become "collateral casualties" ourselves in such reprisal attacks. Is it right, is it good? Of course not, but at the same time, will it stop if "we the people" can not learn our "lesson" and correct the inhuman policies our leaders pursue in our names? You are not facing logical reality if you fail to account for these facts. In fact, your position, as you state it, is vacuous, and devoid of logic. The usual "treat the symptoms but never acknowledge or deal with the underlying cause" mentality, which is so prevalently marketed to the Amerikan consumer by the corporate "bread and circuses" media controllers who profit most from failed militaristic policies. The only way to "win" will be in respect, in humility, in dignity. That "all life has value, even the lives of non-Americans. That all people want the same things, family, happiness, love. And that an American life has no greater or lesser value than that of any other". But instead, we spiral into accellerating degeneracy, destroying ourselves and taking the whole world along for the ride to the bottom. Another historic failure of culture and civilization, a needless waste of physical resources and human life. But how could it be otherwise, when most can not conceive it's true nature? -Max
--digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG XwnNnDWaFm4T8flPHGpKzyaV4jg8/RzK3pUzhOzQ 4+xdZmD79Z+1bt+2a7gG1vL9K6V53m4xxeoRxCt4p
------------------------------------------------ A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government. --George Washington ------------------------------------------------- Smash The State! mailing list home http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/smashthestate ---
-- James A. Donald
I am anti war. You lot are pro Saddam.
baudmax23@earthlink.net wrote:
That is quite a presumption there. "If you're not with US, you're with the terrorists",
If you call for the release of Saddam, or you justify 9/11, as the "anti-war" posters in this thread have been arguing, then indeed you are with the terrorists. You are stupid evil, and a loser.
Uncle Ho" was the leader of the Indochinese resistance, leader of a popular anti-colonial nationalist movement
A popular anti-colonial nationalist movement which he led from Moscow? Somehow I seriously doubt that Stalin's Moscow was the place to find nationalist movements, let alone popular ones. When Ho came to power in North Vietnam, he treated the population as though they were the enemy, and himself the quisling leader of a hostile alien occupation force. In his terror against the Vietnamese, he set execution quotas. His servants had to kill such and such a number of "class enemies" in each village.
Chickens always come home to roost. This is the case with Saddam, same as it was for Bin Laden as well (another CIA Frankenstein, run amok on Master).
I deleted most of your lies without comment, as too obvious and stupid to merit rebuttal, but this lie, though equally obvious and equally stupid, is significant, as it links the fans of Saddam, with the fans of Stalin and Soviet expansionism. You accuse the US of not merely being allied to bin Laden, but of "creating" him, which presupposes that the US created the Afghan resistance, and indeed every resistance to Soviet tyranny. Hey, if it had not been for that nasty CIA the afghans would have been happy as pigs in mud enjoying the vast benefits of being uplifted by the Soviets to the superior level of civilization enjoyed by the beneficiaries of Soviet alliance :-) That is a lie we have heard over and over again, with thirty different wars of Soviet aggression, starting in the 1920s. We heard it most infamously uttered against East German resistance, and every time we heard that tired old lie, those servants of tyranny uttering it were less believable, and less believed.
in particular: In the quotations collected below, the name of the leader who was assassinated is spelled variously as Qasim, Qassim and Kassem. But, however you spell his name, when he took power in a popularly-backed coup in 1958, he certainly got recognized in Washington. He carried out such anti-American and anti-corporatist policies as starting the process of nationalizing foreign oil companies in Iraq, withdrawing Iraq from the US-initiated right-wing Baghdad Pact (which included another military-run, US-puppet state, i.e., Pakistan) and decriminalizing the Iraqi Communist Party. Despite these actions, and more likely because of them, he was Iraq's most popular leader. He had to go! In 1959, there was a failed assassination attempt on Qasim. The failed assassin was none other than a young Saddam Hussein. In 1963, a CIA-organized coup did successfully assassinate Qasim and Saddam's Ba'ath Party came to power for the first time.
oh come on. The Baathist coup was part of a pan arab conspiracy for simultaneous coups in all major arab countries, to create a united pan arab socialist government modelled on Stalin's dictatorship, which would supposedly make the arabs strong in the way that Stalin had supposedly made the Soviet Union strong. It is plausible that the CIA might support an ordinary military coup against a pro Soviet tyrant, but it is unbelievable that the CIA would support a pan arabist coup, intended to unite the arab world and subjugate the drunken fat princes of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, etc. Plus, if you really believed that Saddam was a CIA agent, how come you are calling for him to be released, or turned over to the questionable justice of his fellow tyrants and mass murderers running the court in the Hague? --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG TvAY6+Fkueg9q0ZdMfMzOTt1CMEcIaszUot0IXzl 4nh/RBzF7wz2eI/jN6gnWICUVvW8DNV8OwkTIisqt
At 07:31 PM 12/21/2003 -0800, James A. Donald wrote:
baudmax23@earthlink.net wrote:
That is quite a presumption there. "If you're not with US, you're with the terrorists",
If you call for the release of Saddam, or you justify 9/11, as the "anti-war" posters in this thread have been arguing, then indeed you are with the terrorists.
Saddam's not particularly related to the terrorists, especially the 9/11 gang, other than having a common enemy. He's apparently funded some terrorism in Israel, but then the Israelis have funded lots of terrorism in Palestine. He is related to the anti-invader resistance, but that's fair. He may have been involved in a plot to kill George Bush the Elder, but Bush had tried to kill him first, with decapitation bombings. Either try both of them for that, or neither of them, or better, let the two of them do pistols at dawn. (Come to think of it, give enough people that opportunity and the problem goes away.) (Of *course* I meant give them that opportunity with Saddam, not Bush...) But making up pretenses for invasion any time people question your previous pretense is simply unprofessional. If you want to have any pretense of caring about the Rule of Law, you need to stick to it even after capturing your enemies, otherwise you're just an illegitimate tyrant. (Also, it's nice to pronounce "rule of law" the way Jefferson did, rather than sounding like Bismarck's speech about "Blut und Eisen".) That means either letting him go, or finding something to try him for that you can not only prove, but that you have your own standing to try him for, or else turn him over to someone else who has a legitimate case. Handing him to the ICC is fine, if you don't think drowning people in red tape is cruel&unusual, or hand him to the Kuwaitis, but not to the gang who were lying about Iraqis ripping babies out of incubators. Or to the Iraqis.
Plus, if you really believed that Saddam was a CIA agent, how come you are calling for him to be released, or turned over to the questionable justice of his fellow tyrants and mass murderers running the court in the Hague?
The US did support Saddam in the Iran-Iraq war, because he was more in line with their interests than the Ayatollah's gang were. However, unlike Noriega, I doubt he was a direct employee, so if they wanted to attack him, the right channel was to declare war, rather than to just call in CIA Internal Affairs....
-- James A. Donald:
If you call for the release of Saddam, or you justify 9/11, as the "anti-war" posters in this thread have been arguing, then indeed you are with the terrorists.
Bill Stewart
Saddam's not particularly related to the terrorists,
Those who want Saddam released, for the most part also rationalize 9/11 He may not be related to the terrorists, but his fans are related to the terrorists.
But making up pretenses for invasion any time people question your previous pretense is simply unprofessional.
The title of this thread is "I am anti war, you stupid evil scum are pro saddam." I do not support the invasion. I am not making up pretenses for the invasion.
If you want to have any pretense of caring about the Rule of Law, you need to stick to it even after capturing your enemies
This is war. Rule of law does not apply. Rules of war do apply. And rules of war say that the US army can not only give Saddam a dental examination, it can nail Saddam's head to a post in Baghdad with a nine inch nail, because he was captured out of uniform, administering the war effort while hiding amongst civilians.
Handing him to the ICC is fine, if you don't think drowning people in red tape is cruel&unusual
Handing him to the ICC is not fine, because the ICC is not going to execute him, and because the ICC is farcically incompetent, and because the ICC is dominated by the same tyrants who dominate the UN human rights commission, who might well choose to let him off. When I see how many people want to get him off, I more and more think the the USG needs to kill him quickly. The longer he lives, the greater the likelyhood that his international pals will pull him out of trouble, and eventually return him to power. The Nuremberg trials were held in Germany by the victors. Why this big desire to do something different this time around? I don't hear anyone except the usual Nazis whining that Nuremberg was illegitimate or unfair. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG ffvNRYuGrbqZTNb8D6gHcU9pscBMBdTQYoiW5UTS 4RbpAw5ZWrw71na8WBeLsb0wxGPk4N0JFG0QkwH12
At 09:20 AM 12/22/2003, James A. Donald wrote:
This is war. Rule of law does not apply. Rules of war do apply. And rules of war say that the US army can not only give Saddam a dental examination, it can nail Saddam's head to a post in Baghdad with a nine inch nail, because he was captured out of uniform, administering the war effort while hiding amongst civilians.
Cite your sources. The one's I find creditable indicate that at the time of his capture he appeared to have been held captive for at least 2-3 weeks. He may not have had an option about his uniform, or much else for that matter. steve
-- On 22 Dec 2003 at 11:43, Steve Schear wrote:
Cite your sources. The one's I find creditable indicate that at the time of his capture he appeared to have been held captive for at least 2-3 weeks.
Oh come on. A whole platoon of random troops would have to be part of a big conspiracy. Plus quite a few Iraqis have interviewed him. They in the vast right wing conspiracy also? Or did the US perhaps rewrite Saddam's memory with the memory erasure thingy from 'men in black' Shortly after busting Saddam, the US busted large numbers of people in his apparatus, on the basis of records seized from his farmhouse. Did Saddam's henchmen perhaps not notice Saddam was missing because the US replaced him with a double? Real conspiracies exist, but when you start to see conspiracies so large, so well organized, so tightly disciplined, embracing so many quite ordinary seeming people, you are slipping into madness. If a conspiracy is large, it is not going to be well organized and tightly disciplined. The communists took the big conspiracy as far as it could go, and it did not go that far. It is really hard to put on a big show unless you can carefully select your audience for willing suspension of disbelief. If the US was faking the circumstances of Saddam's capture, this would be comparable to the bigger potemkin village operations that the communists put on, for example Mao's fake prison, where only the most privileged got to play prisoner, but the communists were utterly paranoid about exercising total control of any outsider's access to the set, the actors or anyone remotely connected to the actors, and only allowed the most carefully selected outsiders tightly controlled and highly supervised access, whereas the US army has been completely relaxed about letting anyone contact those involved in the story. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG mnNGnEuQuzpGASrruKWsKhQzuCnYUai/jQiqorMy 4qGaSHHsj4ncE7dJt0UcQcaG4v8WQFbg0mZElu6db
At 12:25 PM 12/22/2003 -0800, James A. Donald wrote:
-- On 22 Dec 2003 at 11:43, Steve Schear wrote:
Cite your sources. The one's I find creditable indicate that at the time of his capture he appeared to have been held captive for at least 2-3 weeks.
Oh come on.
A whole platoon of random troops would have to be part of a big conspiracy. Plus quite a few Iraqis have interviewed him. They in the vast right wing conspiracy also?
This isn't suggesting that the US kept Saddam on hold for political expediency, the way they're planning to "suddenly" "find" Osama _and_ the Missing Weapons of Mass Destruction next October just in time for the election. This is just saying that it appears that some well-armed independents (or traitorous ex-henchpersons, or whoever) caught Saddam a couple of weeks ago and have been trying to negotiate a good price, but the US found them and avoided paying them off. That's believable (though of course it could be staged, either to deceive the American public about whether we really paid them or to make it easier for the initial captors to get away with it afterwards.) It's therefore being suggested that while they've let Saddam hang onto enough clean underwear for a few weeks of spider-hole time, that they either haven't been ironing his uniforms adequately, or else they ditched them because that someone else might catch on and sell _them_ out for a reward. I find this less credible. Maybe the captors have been using his Generalissimo uniforms as evidence to get the Americans to negotiate with them or something, but again it's dubious.
At 11:43 AM -0800 12/22/03, Steve Schear wrote:
Cite your sources. The one's I find creditable
Debka? Really? :-) Cheers, RAH -- ----------------- R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah@ibuc.com> The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
At 09:20 AM 12/22/2003, James A. Donald wrote:
The Nuremberg trials were held in Germany by the victors. Why this big desire to do something different this time around? I don't hear anyone except the usual Nazis whining that Nuremberg was illegitimate or unfair.
From a 2001 cypherpunks post to cypherpunks Basis Fundamental questions have been raised regarding the legal and moral foundation of ad hoc judicial forums, such the War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague and Rwandan tribunals. Both were created by the U.N. Security Council though its charter mentions no such authority. Isn't this little more than mob justice carried out by nation states? Come to think of it isn't the purpose of all murder trials "civilized Vengeance" (small c, big V)? The espoused purpose of these courts is to enforce "norms of justice in the international community." But who constitutes that community and what are those norms? The truth is justice like beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Historically, the notion of what is just has varied considerably and often based on economics and religion. Modern western justice tends to ignore these factors and so sets the stage, indirectly, for a trial of cultures. Even within the west these norms seem to be rapidly changing. Can or should such norms be used a basis for international law? Uniform Application Like the Nuremberg trials before them, these tribunals appear ripe with application of ex post facto "laws" and inattention to technicalities. They often bear little resemblance to the laws and their application within the major U.N. member states. The states have no great interest in either bringing a consistent moral basis to their foreign and domestic policies or establishing strong extra-national courts which could conceivably bring national leaders to account their actions. All potential violators must be investigated with equal vigilance and judged according to a uniform standard or none should be. Serious charges have been leveled against Henry Kissenger yet no criminal indictments have been brought or even discussed by the tribunals. Unless these courts are held by world citizens to the motto "Equal Justice Under Law" carved on our Supreme Court building then no courts should be convened. Current procedures brand the courts as a propaganda puppet show merely using forms of justice to carry out a predetermined policy. Competition Despite frequent evidence that economics trump justice, national governments continue the charade of representing all the interests of their citizens. Mohammed Douri, Iraq's U.N. ambassador's quote in the article put it cynically and succinctly, "Politics is about interests. Politics is not about morals." I believe Mohammed is right. That these courts aren't better is because, like most governmental services, they have no need: there is no viable alternative. If one accepts the American Constitutional notion that all rights are originally vested in the sovereign individual and that competition is usually the best path to maximizing quality of a service, then a clear path extends to a market based solution. Effective private justice may not provide a fairer outcome but it will offer an alternative which will challenge the current tribunals and their masters to either abandon pretexts that they are impartial, abandon the tribunals altogether or improve them. Any attempt to establish a private global (as opposed to international, as in between nations) justice system are likely to be met with harsh responses by the major nation states. They don't want the competition and some of their current or former leaders and their lieutenants could be the first facing indictments. So, anonymity of supporters is a prerequisite. The Internet has shown us that it can be an effective medium for annealing those with out of the mainstream political views into formidable groups whilst offering effective privacy. Money often buys justice. So, a means for moralists to anonymously fund their interests is needed. Fortunately, a number of effective and popular electronic currencies (e.g., e-gold) with adequate privacy features exist. Every successful social movement requires leadership. Hopefully someone of great character and stature will step forward or emerge and take the reins to either bring all to account for their war crime actions (by whatever means necessary) or thwart (by whatever means necessary) the ability of the U.N. tribunals to operate from their baseless pedestal. steve "War is the health of the State. It automatically sets in motion throughout society those irresistible forces of uniformity, for passionate cooperation with the Government in coercing into obedience the minority groups and individuals which lack the larger herd sense ... the nation in wartime attains a uniformity of feeling, hierarchy of values culminating at the undisputed apex of the State ideal, which could not possibly be produced through any other agency than war ...." --- from the first part of an essay titled "The State," left unfinished at Randolph Bourne's untimely death in 1918.
-- baudmax23@earthlink.net wrote:
Kassem [...] took power in a popularly-backed coup in 1958, [..] starting the process of nationalizing foreign oil companies in Iraq, withdrawing Iraq from the US-initiated right-wing Baghdad Pact (which included another military-run, US-puppet state, i.e., Pakistan) and decriminalizing the Iraqi Communist Party. Despite these actions, and more likely because of them, he was Iraq's most popular leader. He had to go! In 1959, there was a failed assassination attempt on Qasim. The failed assassin was none other than a young Saddam Hussein. In 1963, a CIA-organized coup did successfully assassinate Qasim and Saddam's Ba'ath Party came to power for the first time.
So in your version of reality, the Iraqi people were happily enjoying socialism, loving the socialism this benevolent Kassem provided to them and then this evil capitalistic CIA agent, Saddam, took it all away from them. If that is what happened, what is your objection then to him being given to Iraqi people for execution? Why are you calling for him to be released, or to be given to his fellow tyrants who run the Hague court, who certainly will not execute him, probably will not imprison him for very long, and might well exonerate him? --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG PlYk3rEnQaDH/vg6bQg87i+LKYnWL9B1wqDEvWkg 4OVFXm6Pp/pT/tn37qWgP4Q8Njgd7Uzm3LbUDEesM
At 01:59 AM 12/22/2003 -0800, "James A. Donald" <jamesd@echeque.com> wrote:
-- baudmax23@earthlink.net wrote:
Kassem [...] took power in a popularly-backed coup in 1958, [..] starting the process of nationalizing foreign oil companies in Iraq, withdrawing Iraq from the US-initiated right-wing Baghdad Pact (which included another military-run, US-puppet state, i.e., Pakistan) and decriminalizing the Iraqi Communist Party. Despite these actions, and more likely because of them, he was Iraq's most popular leader. He had to go! In 1959, there was a failed assassination attempt on Qasim. The failed assassin was none other than a young Saddam Hussein. In 1963, a CIA-organized coup did successfully assassinate Qasim and Saddam's Ba'ath Party came to power for the first time.
So in your version of reality, the Iraqi people were happily enjoying socialism, loving the socialism this benevolent Kassem provided to them and then this evil capitalistic CIA agent, Saddam, took it all away from them.
If that is what happened, what is your objection then to him being given to Iraqi people for execution? Why are you calling for him to be released, or to be given to his fellow tyrants who run the Hague court, who certainly will not execute him, probably will not imprison him for very long, and might well exonerate him?
You are apparently so wrapped up in seeing this in some pre-conceived way, as to not grasp the obvious, literal meaning of what you read. Kassem was a pro-arab nationalist, who nationalized (as in seized, without compensation) formerly foreign corporate oil interests. Kassem was ANTI-western, anti-American, do you get it? THAT is why Saddam had been recruited by CIA for the original (failed) assassination attempt. After that, he fled Iraq, for Egypt. Later, after the CIA successfully had Kassem assassinated, then Saddam returned to Iraq, and eventually installed himself (with US blessing) as Dictator/president. Kassem was highly popular with the Iraqi public, who were we to say otherwise, and have him killed for power/profit considerations? In doing so, for our interests, the Iraqi people suffered decades of tyranny under Saddam. Do you understand our involvement in that? More historical facts for the memory hole... I don't much care to exonerate him, martyr him or anysuch nonsense. However, if he is ALL THAT YOU RANT about, then he would obviously be convicted of his crimes in a fair and open court. To reduce it to a kangeroo court and a lynching as you propose is to delegitamize such action. As Tim May has already pointed out, what direct threat has Saddam posed to us suddenly that required us to attack him (as well as cause all the collateral casualties of innocents who didn't even support Saddam?). To punish the Iraqi people for the actions of their leaders ( 2 wars and 12 years of sanctions, no less) ... is just as much terrorism as Bin Laden punishing the US by attacking civilian Americans in the "homeland". It was an excellent point Tim made though, that if you feel so strongly about intervening militarily in the affairs of others who have not directly come here and attacked you (like Saddam) then you ought to enlist and start fighting. I still can't figure out your obsessive and false connexion between Saddam and the Sept.11 attacks (besides Bush's widely disseminated, baseless media propagated innuendo which misled ignorant US citizens to believe otherwise). What ever did happen to Bin Laden? Are we REALLY any safer today than before Sept.11th? (Fade to Code Orange for Xmas/New Years) Is it possible to defend such a large empire, always, everywhere? (hint: Sun Tzu's "Art of War" provides the historical answer here) Or is the true path to security and peace (in the longer term) based on mutual respect of societies and cultures. I posit the only true solution will be to remove the motivation for the attacks: a non-interventionist policy that trades with all, and wars with none, except any that directly ATTACKS the US. When we threw the English out of the US in our revolution, WE THE PEOPLE did it, not some foreign "liberation force" coming to save us yocals. Any people desiring freedom from intolerable restraint will take the same action, without requiring external nations to intervene and get the ball rolling. Unfortunately, the US has an extensive and well documented history around the world of supporting/arming/protecting dictators, even from their own people who may be revolting against them in armed rebellion. You can, in your ignorance, ignore the well established and documented history of covert CIA operations, leading to the installation of brutal dictators (like Saddam, like the return of the Shah in Iran, like most of the coups in S.America, like Pinochet in Chile, etc etc etc), but your belief does not make any of that history any less real. Experiencing some severe cognitive dissonance between the media-reinforced "myths" and the "actual realities", are we? I also don't understand your contempt of the ICC Hague. The US has not signed the treaty, for fear of US personnel and officials being treated by the same standard as everyone else, in regards the commission of war crimes. Why not pass the buck to them... do you REALLY think they'd just "let him go" (I doubt it). And then this way America cannot be implicated in the injustice of a mock kangeroo trial and execution, which will only further motivate anti-US global resistance like al Qaeda. -Max
--digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG PlYk3rEnQaDH/vg6bQg87i+LKYnWL9B1wqDEvWkg 4OVFXm6Pp/pT/tn37qWgP4Q8Njgd7Uzm3LbUDEesM
--- Secrecy is the cornerstone of all tyranny. Not force, but secrecy... censorship. When any government, or any church, for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, "This you may not read, this you must not see, this you are forbidden to know," the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives. Mightily little force is needed to control a man who has been hoodwinked; Contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; The most you can do is kill him. -Robert A. Heinlein, Revolt in 2100 --- Smash The State! mailing list home http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/smashthestate ---
-- James A. Donald:
So in your version of reality, the Iraqi people were happily enjoying socialism, loving the socialism this benevolent dictator Kassem provided to them and then this evil capitalistic CIA agent, Saddam, took it all away from them.
If that is what happened, what is your objection then to him being given to Iraqi people for execution? Why are you calling for him to be released, or to be given to his fellow tyrants who run the Hague court, who certainly will not execute him, probably will not imprison him for very long, and might well exonerate him?
baudmax23@earthlink.net
You are apparently so wrapped up in seeing this in some pre-conceived way, as to not grasp the obvious, literal meaning of what you read. Kassem was a pro-arab nationalist, who nationalized (as in seized, without compensation) formerly foreign corporate oil interests. Kassem was ANTI-western, anti-American, do you get it?
Your story is inconsistent. You tell us Saddam was a capitalistic CIA agent -- so therefore we should not let the Iraqis hang him. Huh? Saddam also was and is socialist, anti western, anti american, seized stuff without compensation etc, which is presumably why you are backing him today -- and which makes the tale that he was a CIA "creation" unbelievable.
You can, in your ignorance, ignore the well established and documented history of covert CIA operations
From time to time old archives of the CIA are opened, and usually conspicuously fail to confirm these tales -- these tales all being variants of one single tale -- that wherever Soviet aligned tyrants had trouble with each other or with
Your "history" comes for the most part from notorious KGB agents, for example John Pilger. those they subjugated, it was all the CIA's doing.
I also don't understand your contempt of the ICC Hague
Consider the trial of Milosevic. Either the Hague is deliberately trying to get him off, or they are idiots. Most likely idiots. Plus if the Hague should ever get to exercise real power, which its present performance makes unlikely, we would have a world government, which would probably decide the entire American population to be war criminals and send everyone to the camps. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG KbRqE7c6EOpNAFJxD8n8roCUXV2WNJo4DkqL0p7h 4zVatkiNc/ZPba7GUPRigeFpK5jmJrSkpQ/2Y7edR
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 20-Dec-03, at 8:41 PM, James A. Donald wrote:
I am anti war. You lot are pro Saddam.
Why. Because we OPPOSED the war on Saddam? That's an interresting logic you have here: "I am against the war, unless of course, it is initiated by lies, deceit and the US of A. YOU are all of course for Torture, Murder and Saddam because he is the one the US of A is fighting the war against."
Back in the sixties, there were lots of good reasons to oppose the Vietnam war, notably that it was fought by conscription,
Oh, so if it can hit your friend Buddy from down the road who just got drafted it is okay to be against it. But if a kid from the Bronx who has no other viable choice but join the military gets into the crossfire (and don't tell me he understands the reasons any better than your Buddy did back in Vietnam) it is okay?
and that McNamara's search for measures of war fighting efficiency and to create incentives for efficient production of war effort were demoralizing the troops, and instead of creating incentives to fight effectively, created perverse incentives to commit mass murder in place of killing the enemy.
Ah, and this right now was / is a "clean" war? You now, good and honest? Two guys facing each other? One a couple of thousand feet up in the air dropping cluster bombs on cities while the other one hides in a hole, together with his family?
But instead the opponents wound up chanting 'ho, ho, ho Chi Minh" Ho Chi Minh was a senior KGB agent, who after spending ten years behind a desk in Moscow organizing the murder of Indochinese nationalists was sent from Moscow to rule what became North Vietnam. He purged 85% of the communist party, murdering a large but unknown proportion of them, and conducted a terror against the peasants of extraordinary savagery.
Yet you still think there was a good reason to Oppose the Vietnam war? Make up your mind man. Was it a "just" war like (in your opinion) Iraq right now or was it unjust?
And now the guys on this list are weeping big salt tears about poor victimized Saddam.
Because, if we claim to be humane, do these wars for the greater good, we better act like it. (By it i mean the West in general). If we don't then we better shut the fuck up about our 'ideals" and how everybody should live by them. Why do you think we're such a target? Because the majority of the world population sees us for what we are: Opportunistic killers. Either we do it ourselves or we pay others to do our dirty work.
Anyone who opposed the war on Vietnam should have started off by asking "How shall we contain the Soviet Union and eventually defeat communism, and what is wrong with the way this administration is doing it.
First of all the USSR was not Commust, it was a Stalnistic country. Second of all: Shouldn't people be free to choose under which political system they want to live? I grew up in Western Germany, I have been to what was then the GDR several times. I have still family in those areas. You know what? They said overall it was just as good if not better than it is today. It is your kind of Arrogance that causes wars like one in Iraq right now. It is arrogance like yours that makes millions suffer without you even notice. There were a million more places where an intervention would have done any good. Yet in none of these places do we see anybody (Ivory Coast anyone?)
Similarly anyone who opposes the war in Iraq should start by visualizing himself as the heir of King John Sobieski, not the heir of Saladin. Anyone opposing the war in Iraq needs oppose it from the point of view that Americans and their way of life should win, deserve to win, and the raghead fanatics should lose, and their way of life perish.
Why does the "american way of life" have to win? What is it about the "american way" that has to win? The ability to dream of maybe becoming rich one day? The american dream and lifestyle has just as much right to "win" as any other. There is no "right" in any of these.
Anyone who wants to argue that the guys in the two towers had it coming, and poor Saddam is a victim, puts himself in the corner with the people who are stupid, evil, and losers.
Sammdam and the two towers had nothing to do with each other. That for one. Second of all. Did they had it coming? Yes. It was only a question of time until something like this would have happened. The fact that the majority refused to see it has nothing to do with it. Something will happen again, doesn't matter how many grannys you take away their needles, or how many people you put on a "no-fly" list because they are reading the wrong books. History is beginning to repeat itself. The Colonial Powers got kicked out of their colonies. As the world can hardly kick the US out of the Earth they will strike home. If you really think that the US's behaviour (in regards to foreign policy) has nothing to do with 9/11 then you really are blind. Michael -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA/AwUBP+WanmlCnxcrW2uuEQIZCACfUXCYhDmjtcRs+A8I1rGFD74wjBYAnjfV WYGzJZfm9VGYMyso2KNdOLt9 =8IrL -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- James A. Donald:
I am anti war. You lot are pro Saddam.
Michael Kalus
Why. Because we OPPOSED the war on Saddam?
Because you have been justifying his actions, denying his crimes, and calling for his release. James A.Donald:
But instead the opponents wound up chanting 'ho, ho, ho Chi Minh" Ho Chi Minh was a senior KGB agent, who after spending ten years behind a desk in Moscow organizing the murder of Indochinese nationalists was sent from Moscow to rule what became North Vietnam. He purged 85% of the communist party, murdering a large but unknown proportion of them, and conducted a terror against the peasants of extraordinary savagery.
Michael Kalus
Yet you still think there was a good reason to Oppose the Vietnam war? Make up your mind man. Was it a "just" war like (in your opinion) Iraq right now or was it unjust?
It was an unwise war fought by unjust means. The cause of saving the Vietnamese from Soviet domination was a just cause, as the terror and the flood of refugees that followed the defeat of the west in Indochina proved. However, "just cause" is only one of the several criteria needed for a just war. (And the Iraqi war does not satisfy all the criteria of just war either, though hanging Saddam is surely a just cause.)
Why does the "american way of life" have to win?
The world cannot remain half slave and half free. We must become slaves, or they must become free. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG jZXTBmVpML2nLd2bSKH/1gh9Qm3dDT6mYomGoIsl 4wZklKuwlV/p34b+cMEJm5vQiUIkitUC0+bJTIw0v
On Dec 21, 2003, at 7:58 PM, James A. Donald wrote:
It was an unwise war fought by unjust means. The cause of saving the Vietnamese from Soviet domination was a just cause, as the terror and the flood of refugees that followed the defeat of the west in Indochina proved.
Not my problem. If the Viet Cong wanted to free themselves from Ho or Thieu or Diem or Lyndon, not my problem. And anyone using force to take my money to pay for such a war is aggressing against me. Crapola about "just wars" is just statist nonsense.
However, "just cause" is only one of the several criteria needed for a just war. (And the Iraqi war does not satisfy all the criteria of just war either, though hanging Saddam is surely a just cause.)
Why does the "american way of life" have to win?
The world cannot remain half slave and half free. We must become slaves, or they must become free.
Not my problem. The Jews in Germany and Poland should have fought their oppressors instead of twirling their sidelocks and rocking and spinning...that they were slaughtered is, repeat after me, NOT MY PROBLEM. Your proposal in this thread and others to fight "just wars" means you are still the socialist you said you were in your earlier years, albeit now worshipping Rand and Reagan instead of Ho and Che and Mao. There has not been a "just war" involving America since 1776. And maybe 1812, though that was really just a minor skirmish. Stop yammering about using force to take my money and my time to support your "just causes" and "just wars." Better yet, why don't you just _ENLIST_ in the U.S. Army and go to Baghdad to implement your principles? --Tim May
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 21-Dec-03, at 10:58 PM, James A. Donald wrote:
-- James A. Donald:
I am anti war. You lot are pro Saddam.
Michael Kalus
Why. Because we OPPOSED the war on Saddam?
Because you have been justifying his actions, denying his crimes, and calling for his release.
I guess statements like these come about when there is a disconnect between the brain, the eyes and the fingers who type out these words. I suggest you go back and re-read the arguments.
James A.Donald:
But instead the opponents wound up chanting 'ho, ho, ho Chi Minh" Ho Chi Minh was a senior KGB agent, who after spending ten years behind a desk in Moscow organizing the murder of Indochinese nationalists was sent from Moscow to rule what became North Vietnam. He purged 85% of the communist party, murdering a large but unknown proportion of them, and conducted a terror against the peasants of extraordinary savagery.
Michael Kalus
Yet you still think there was a good reason to Oppose the Vietnam war? Make up your mind man. Was it a "just" war like (in your opinion) Iraq right now or was it unjust?
It was an unwise war fought by unjust means. The cause of saving the Vietnamese from Soviet domination was a just cause, as the terror and the flood of refugees that followed the defeat of the west in Indochina proved. However, "just cause" is only one of the several criteria needed for a just war. (And the Iraqi war does not satisfy all the criteria of just war either, though hanging Saddam is surely a just cause.)
Ah, so now we agree that neither war was justified. So, there you go. The end not always justifies the means. As in the case of Iraq which is pretty much everybody saying here.
Why does the "american way of life" have to win?
The world cannot remain half slave and half free. We must become slaves, or they must become free.
Well, in america instead of being the slave to "the man" (just yet) you're the slave to your credit card bills, your employers and all the other robber barons you have in the industry, while under Castro you are.... Well what? You can't travel to the US? You are not necessarily always able to state your political opinions (which sound vaguely familiar in the US right now) etc. Yeah, I see how much freer the US is. Repeat after me: Freedom is something that is defined differently by every human being. Michael -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP 8.0.3 iQA+AwUBP+b2bGlCnxcrW2uuEQLmgACeIVNDbG+Jk1QUmh2gdr/eH23NExcAlAtj SgKdNNiF2T+zWByS27hyMIU= =jU2o -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Monday 22 December 2003 13:49, Michael Kalus wrote:
Well, in america instead of being the slave to "the man" (just yet) you're the slave to your credit card bills
By choice.
your employers
By choice, through a range that is "barely enough to eat and drink" to unimaginable heights in historical terms. and all the
other robber barons you have in the industry, while under Castro you are.... Well what? You can't travel to the US? You are not necessarily always able to state your political opinions (which sound vaguely familiar in the US right now) etc.
Not even close to the US situation. Get a clue. A simple example, read Tim May's continued expressions on the state of the US. Now read this about Cuba: http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2003/05/67973.html Now, tell me that you still think the US is less free.
Repeat after me: Freedom is something that is defined differently by every human being.
So Cuban's choose oppression and no free speech, in exchange for freedom of slavery to credit-card spending on luxury items, employment and robber barons? Have you been to Cuba?
On Sun, 21 Dec 2003, James A. Donald wrote:
The world cannot remain half slave and half free. We must become slaves, or they must become free.
Since "we" are not "free", you can shove this entire line of 100% bullshit up your white racist asshole. -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org "Unbridled nationalism, as distinguished from a sane and legitimate patriotism, must give way to a wider loyalty, to the love of humanity as a whole. Bah'u'llh's statement is: "The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens." The Promise of World Peace http://www.us.bahai.org/interactive/pdaFiles/pwp.htm
On Dec 20, 2003, at 5:41 PM, James A. Donald wrote:
I am anti war. You lot are pro Saddam.
Back in the sixties, there were lots of good reasons to oppose the Vietnam war, notably that it was fought by conscription, and that McNamara's search for measures of war fighting efficiency and to create incentives for efficient production of war effort were demoralizing the troops, and instead of creating incentives to fight effectively, created perverse incentives to commit mass murder in place of killing the enemy.
But instead the opponents wound up chanting 'ho, ho, ho Chi Minh"
As usual, you generalize to the point of venality. I, and many others, were against the war in Vietnam without being supporters of Ho Chi Minh or the Soviets or anyone of that ilk. We were voters for John Hospers in 1972, who opposed the war in Vietnam without being a chanter of "Ho, Ho" or whatever it is your fantasies had us all chanting. (And, yes, I was at the 1970 "Mobe March" in D.C., the one in May 1970, just after Kent State, where Nixon surrounded the White House with buses. I finagled my way into the inner ring, and saw the speakers from a few feet away. Essentially _none_ of them were supporters of the Soviets or the North Vietnamese qua North Vietnamese.)
Ho Chi Minh was a senior KGB agent, who after spending ten years behind a desk in Moscow organizing the murder of Indochinese nationalists was sent from Moscow to rule what became North Vietnam. He purged 85% of the communist party, murdering a large but unknown proportion of them, and conducted a terror against the peasants of extraordinary savagery.
So? Not my problem. And rescuing others by using taxes stolen from Americans, or their bodies, is statist. Moreover, rescuing others is a moral hazard. Rescuing the Jews from their folly of spinning their dreidels and twirling their sidelocks was a particularly heinous moral hazard....they had been in favor of victim disarmament for centuries prior to the so-called Holocaust and their liquidation was predictable. For the American government to send boys to Europe to die to "liberate" Europe was one of the great crimes of the last century. All of America's "alliances" have either been based on one-sided use of force (the USA always goes to fight in foreign lands, they never come here to help us fight our battles with the negroes and Mexicans) or have been based on corporate interests (oil companies, manufacturers wishing to expand into dangerous countries, etc.). "Not my problem" is what the libertarian sentiment embodies. General Motors wants to set up a factory in Eritrea? Let them hire a private army, not use American cannon fodder. Squibb wants to sell baby formula in Paraguay? Intel wants to open a plant in mainland China? The answers are all the same: the U.S. armed forces are not "clearing operations" for corporations or do-gooders.
Anyone who opposed the war on Vietnam should have started off by asking "How shall we contain the Soviet Union and eventually defeat communism, and what is wrong with the way this administration is doing it.
"Containing" some political system in some foreign land is NOT MY PROBLEM. Nor is it in the U.S. Constitution that foreign wars would be launched to save _other_ people from themselves and their foolish decisions.
Similarly anyone who opposes the war in Iraq should start by visualizing himself as the heir of King John Sobieski, not the heir of Saladin. Anyone opposing the war in Iraq needs oppose it from the point of view that Americans and their way of life should win, deserve to win, and the raghead fanatics should lose, and their way of life perish.
All of you, and I do mean _you_, who take my money to spend on these kinds of foreign adventures ought to be taken out and shot...for your aggressions, not for your sentiments. Spend your own money. Become a mercenary. Fight Saddam and Muamar and Jacques all you want. But don't steal my money, either directly or through corporate taxation to do it. Use your own money. Got it? --Tim May "In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot." -- Mark Twain
-- On 22 Dec 2003 at 1:10, Tim May wrote:
I, and many others, were against the war in Vietnam without being supporters of Ho Chi Minh or the Soviets or anyone of that ilk
True, but amongst the vast mass chanting Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh, one could no more discern principled opponents of the Vietnam war, than one can today discern principled opponents of the Iraqi war among the Americans worrying about poor little victimized Saddam, and the mass of Europeans jumping for joy over the fall of the two towers. Amidst the pro Saddam posters on this thread, many have come rather close to chanting "Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh" -- for the example the argument that the evil CIA deprived the third world masses of their beloved socialism provided by benevolent dictators, and the argument that the US "created' the Afghan resistance -- and thus presumably every other resistance movement against the Soviets.
Essentially _none_ of them were supporters of the Soviets or the North Vietnamese qua North Vietnamese.)
Now I get to call you the pinko: They were supposedly supporters of the NLF, which they well knew was a North Vietnamese sock puppet, and thus a KGB sock puppet. And when that sock puppet was discarded to reveal the iron fist of the NVA that had been moving its lips, none of them were surprised or dismayed. Similarly Jane Fonda was supposedly not a supporter of the North Vietnamese qua North Vietnamese, yet without hesitation she lied about the condition and treatment of the POWs she met, whom she depicted as leniently treated war criminals. When some of those she lied about returned home to speak the truth, she stuck to her position, counter attacking them as hypocrites and liars, denying that they had shown signs of starvation and torture. I find it strange that the speakers at your rally were so remarkably different from the speakers at my rally -- particularly when so many of the pro Saddam posters in this thread sound like they are new nyms for the same people who spoke at my rally. If any of your speakers really thought the NLF was something other than a KGB sock puppet, they would have had posters of the supposed NLF leader on their wall. Instead, not one of these supposed supporters of the NLF blinked when the most of the NLF vanished in the 1975 purge. --digsig James A. Donald 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG vgi7SNuqDzYgX5I5Cmd4QPW+QLDM2w78B+RO1o8f 4oxwhPbCXdnYRp30H5XOTLwLfzQyCsQo15VgpDWYW
On Sat, 20 Dec 2003, James A. Donald wrote:
Anyone opposing the war in Iraq needs oppose it from the point of view that Americans and their way of life should win, deserve to win, and the raghead fanatics should lose, and their way of life perish.
*plonk* -- Yours, J.A. Terranson sysadmin@mfn.org "Unbridled nationalism, as distinguished from a sane and legitimate patriotism, must give way to a wider loyalty, to the love of humanity as a whole. Bah'u'llh's statement is: "The earth is but one country, and mankind its citizens." The Promise of World Peace http://www.us.bahai.org/interactive/pdaFiles/pwp.htm
participants (12)
-
baudmax23＠earthlink.net -
Bill Stewart -
David Crookes -
Eugen Leitl -
J.A. Terranson -
James A. Donald -
Justin -
Michael Kalus -
proclus＠gnu-darwin.org -
R. A. Hettinga -
Steve Schear -
Tim May