Make your own judgement: link (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=1&u=/ap/20031215/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_iraq)

A few highlights:

WASHINGTON - President Bush promised a fair, public trial for Saddam Hussein on Monday but also said "he's a torturer and a killer" and can't be trusted to tell interrogators the truth about weapons of mass destruction or attacks against Americans in Iraq. Asked if Saddam should face the death penalty, Bush said, "I have my personal views. And this is a brutal dictator."

"He's a person who killed a lot of people. But my views, my personal views, aren't important in this matter," the president said. "Good riddance. The world is better off without you, Mr. Saddam Hussein." Heading into a battle for re-election, Bush protested that it was too early to talk about the campaign now. "Forget politics," Bush said. But in what sounded like a political pitch, he went on to say he was pursuing a strategy "to keep the country more secure but more prosperous and a better country, as well." Questions about Saddam dominated Bush's 48-minute news conference. And the president took the opportunity — repeatedly — to build an indictment against Saddam as a murderous tyrant who could not be trusted to clear up questions about whether Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or whether Saddam had ties to terrorist groups.

"I mean, he's a deceiver, he's a liar, he's a torturer, he's a murderer," Bush said. Bush passed up an opportunity to say whether Saddam's fate held any lessons for North Korean leader Kim Jong Il and U.S. demands that Kim abandon a nuclear weapons program. Bush said that military force was a last resort and that he was using diplomatic means and persuasion now with North Korea (news - web sites).

"I'm pleased with the progress we're making," Bush said, "and I hope, of course, he listens."Amazing how with Il, military force is a last resort...

I really doubt that he'll be getting much of a fair trial no matter where he goes! Especially in the US, he's definately screwed.

There is no way that he should be tried in a US court under US law, and I doubt that he will be. There is also no way that he's going to get anything remotely resembling a "fair" trial, and and to be honest, I have trouble finding tears for him. Let's face it, Saddam Hussein is not exactly Mr. Nice Guy. Regardless of any facts such as the U.S aidng his dictatorship by selling him weapons and whatnot, the guy was still a brutal dictator, and I hope he gets what's coming to him. It's just a shame that Bush is going to use this to buy 4 more years in the white house, though.

Let's just hope against all hope that Bush does not get another 4 years as the president...

"Brutal dictator, liar, deceiver and murder" and "fair trial". Nice. He cannot be trusted to speak truth under oath. So what? So this part can be dispensed with. Right? What's next? Perhaps there's some evidence missing, but then it's pretty obvious, so why bother getting evidence? He didn't let inspectors in, so must have had WMD. He would have let them in if he didn't have WMD, wouldn't he?

News: no matter what, he didn't start the war.

The logic used to lend credit to opposite points is simple:

9/11 was an act of war against the US

AND it was committed by terrorists

ERGO: terrorists committed an act of war against the US

ERGO: terrorists started war against the US

AND Saddam had ties with terrorists

ERGO: Saddam was on war with the US, anyway

ERGO: The invasion is his fault and his guilt. In legal sense.

Unbeatable, isn't it?

Asked if Saddam should face the death penalty, Bush said, "I have my personal views. And this is a brutal dictator."

"He's a person who killed a lot of people. But my views, my personal views, aren't important in this matter," the president said. Right....him coming from the highest death penalty state in the country (along with Florida)...you can bet it's important to him. (Better have a drool bucket ready on that day.)

No, the logic flows like this:

9/11 was an act of war against the US

AND it was committed by terrorists

ERGO: terrorists committed an act of war against the US

ERGO: terrorists started war against the US

AND these terrorists proclaimed their commitment to wreaking further death and destruction

AND these terrorists plotted to procure WMD for that purpose

AND only three countries in the world both opposed the US and were constructing WMD

AND those countries were Iraq, Iran, and North Korea

ERGO: the likeliest way for terrorists at war with the US to acquire WMD was from these countries that already opposed the US

ERGO: a necessity in the war on terror was to neutralize these three sources of WMD

ERGO: North Korea could be neutralized by its neighbors and Iran could be neutralized by the IAEA, but Iraq refused to be neutralized by the UN

ERGO: war with Iraq was a necessary step to block terrorists from acquiring WMD.

I love the word ergo! It's so ergonomic!

Let's just hope against all hope that Bush does not get another 4 years as the president... Yes, Bush is turning this into a media circus himself. He's trying to milk as much political mileage as he can out of all this. Believe me, some of us here are working really hard to get this guy out of office. Still, I've said over and over again on this board, the mainstream media is solidly behind almost everything this guy does. And that has been the most difficult part of all this. Real debate has been muted in very real and unexpected ways. Everything Shrub puts on is a media extravaganza and it seems there's no end in sight.

Some of us knew that the capture of Saddam would help Shrub. Hell, it took long enough. But the media here has gone wild over this thing. I feel like I'm in Munchkin Land, with everyone singing a chrous of "Ding Dong the Witch is Dead." Maybe I am in Oz, and sometime soon I'll wake up in the real America again.

[ December 16, 2003, 07:09: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

I think that if Bush gains another 4-year endowment from the American people, we will see, during that time, some more concrete action taken against NK. Much of the US rapid deployment elite forces are engaged in Afganistan and Iraq...do we go after NK now with National Guard?

I also think that it will be carefully done concurrent with a strengthening of relations between the US, Japan and PRC...I mean who are Kim's missiles a greater threat to, anyway? I believe current intel shows them a threat to the mainland of Alaska and maybe NW US. Perhaps we may see US and Chinese forces acting together to bring an end to this renagade regime.

I think that if Bush gains another 4-year endowment from the American people, we will see, during that time, some more concrete action taken against NK. You mean 4 more wars? I can hardly wait... :rolleyes:

Heading into a battle for re-election, Bush protested that it was too early to talk about the campaign now. "Forget politics," Bush said. But in what sounded like a political pitch, he went on to say he was pursuing a strategy "to keep the country more secure but more prosperous and a better country, as well."

Political pitch? I'd say, :lol: What the article doesn't mention is that later in that press conference he raises his fist and says "on to 2004!" or words to that effect, bowed his head and held up his hands as if to stem the applause - except there wasn't any, just a cough or two. As his eyes peeked up under raised eyebrows from his bowed head , the awkward moment passed and he went on to select another reporter for more questions.

The timing of this capture is just too coincidental to the polical events over the past few days, imo. It wouldn't surprise me at all if they knew exactly where Saddam was hiding for weeks, but waited to do the unveiling at a time that would give Bush maximum political effect.

[snip]

"Saddam was being hidden until just the right time!" Give me a break. Bush could've used his capture months ago. There's nothing opportune about this particular time. If anything it would've been better to wait and take some of the spotlight off of the Democractic primaries.

Yeah, Tal. "Last resort." Just like in Iraq we waited until nearly twenty resolutions had been passed and over a year after we said "this is your last chance."

Yeah, Chandos. Four more wars sounds fine to me if it ends up with the country more safe. Oh, do you believe in fighting to defend your country?

[Warning pending.] -Tal

[ December 16, 2003, 19:46: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

Whatever happened to "Made for Lovin'?" :hippy:

Four more wars sounds fine to me if it ends up with the country more safe. Oh, do you believe in fighting to defend your country?Absolutely. Wars of aggression are a different matter.

Oh, do you believe in fighting to defend your country?

Shrub didn't: http://awol.gq.nu/4dawol.htm

Shralp -- fighting to defend our country against WHAT? Perceived threats, hearsay, some old man in a rat hole? For god's sake....those things exist all over the world! Are you saying we should invade every country that gives the slightest indication that they are pro-terrorist??? That's purely ludicrous (unless you're into the Bush flavor of world domination...oh, and the resulting world peace that would come of it,of course. :rolleyes:

Not every country, of course... Only those which can be conquered with a minimum of casualties, have plenty of natural resources (preferrably oil), or look good for Bush's image (but this last is an exception to the rule; the positive publicity alone is not nearly enough for Bush to go wage a war). It's not like Bush would even ever have sent troops to Afghanistan if Osama didn't happen to be there. The population there really hit the jackpot - they got rid of the Talibans and won't even have to give anything back - considering they have nothing to give.

You don't make the same mistake (in the sense of a war without profit) twice. Iraq is a logical counterweight to the war in Afghanistan which only cost money and provided no real interest on the investment, apart from the scattering of the Talibans. Not that it was that costly, considering how short it was.

There absolutely will be further military conflict, especially if Bush gets re-elected, which is almost a certainty. Short list of countries (in no particular order):

Syria, Iran, North Korea

What many people don't understand is that Iraq is just a starting point. Bush wants to "spread democracy" across the Middle East, by force if necessary. Afghanistan and Iraq were the first, but most likely not the last.

Not that it was that costly, considering how short it was. You were joking right? The US has been involved in Afghanistan for the last 30 odd years.

I'm talking about Bush's part, obviously.

S., he wasn't in a rat hole when the coalition went in. He was in a palace in Baghdad training terrorists, funding them, and working on nuclear and chemical weapons. And yes, you defend yourself from perceived threats. If you don't perceive them, you can't defend against them. If you do perceive them and don't defend, then you are destroyed.

Only those which can be conquered with a minimum of casualties, have plenty of natural resources (preferrably oil), or look good for Bush's image The minimum of casualties is an unfortunate political fact at the moment. The American public just won't tolerate American casualities on the scale that would be necessary to invade, say, North Korea. The exception is if we can prove that the DPRK has WMD and can deliver them. So far that doesn't seem to be the case. However, I fail to see why not wanting to have casualties is a cause for condemnation.

I've debunked the "it's for the oil" nonsense so often that I don't care to do so again. Search for my other posts on the topic in this forum.

Bush certainly didn't need Iraq to help his image. He could have concentrated on Afghanistan and played up the astounding success there (instead of the astounding success in Iraq). And aren't all you leftists always saying that Iraq has hurt Bush's image anyway?

In short, I really don't get what the liberal Europeans are on about. We say that there is an illegal weapons program in Iraq. We say so for many years. Most people in the world agree. They send inspectors. Saddam kicks them out. Then we say, "Give us proof they're gone or we come in with force." He refuses, and the world says, "Wait, wait! We were just kidding before when we said Saddam needed to allow inspectors in. Let's ask again." We say, "ok." And France vetoes. So we go in anyway. Now suddenly because we didn't get a unanimous Security Council vote to uphold a UN resolution, no one believes anymore than Saddam had WMD -- despite the fact that we found bio labs, missiles modified to carry chemical weapons, and British intelligence tells us he was trying to get uranium. And they continue to complain despite the fact that THOUSANDS of lives have been saved because we removed a brutal dictator.

And this point it becomes obvious that there is no principled opposition. The only ones crying foul are doing so out of hatred for Bush or for America in general. You can't claim that you argue based on freedom, because undoubtedly Iraq is more free than before. You can't claim that you argue based on loss of life, because undoubtedly more Iraqis are alive now than would be otherwise. You can't claim that it's due to a desire to conform to international law (as if that exists), because there were nearly twenty resolutions against Iraq and the only reason there wasn't another was because of two nations on the Security Council. Perhaps it's just a "peace at all costs" mentality, but in my mind that equates to cowardice.

Defend does not equate to aggression or violating UN principles. I can see the Afghanistan initiative -- we were attacked, we knew who did it and we were going after them. To use the "defense" ruse to violate international precepts and invade a country as a rogue agressor, no matter what cat-mouse provocation there is, is simply wrong. I do not believe that the crusade Bush has mounted to route out evil (which is precisely what this is) is justified, UNLESS a world-sanctioned (UN)crusade, with a coalition from a variety of countries, wants to take it upon themselves to accomplish this. (They can even make a checklist of who's next on the exorcism list!) Anyone want to join up?

Bush certainly didn't need Iraq to help his image. He could have concentrated on Afghanistan and played up the astounding success there (instead of the astounding success in Iraq).Astounding success? Hello? He went there to get Osama, because Osama was behind 9/11. He didn't get Osama. What success? Osama is hardly any worse for wear than he was before.

We say that there is an illegal weapons program in Iraq. We say so for many years. Most people in the world agree. So these days proof is of no consequence, hearsay serves just as well? USA uncovered no stockpiles of the imaginary WMD in Iraq - WMD the Bush administration publicly claimed they know the EXACT whereabouts of. Even if they didn't - which is obvious today - they didn't find anything which would pass for stockpiles of WMD without a laugh from everyone. You're basing your entire argument on "facts" which have either been proven as incorrect or lies during the last year. I don't know what sort of idiots you expect to fall for that at this point.

And, as usual, you are missing the entire point. It's the *how* that we're disputing, not the *what*. You are saying that anyone who doesn't agree with the current foreign policy of the current US government either hates Bush or America. Well, it is pretty obvious that nobody here hates America per se - no religious fundamentalists among us that I know of. So I guess we're left with hating Bush by your definition. Considering there's always cause for any hate, I don't see what your problem is here... If nobody hated Bush, no one else would ever get elected. You could just establish a dictatorship.

And yes, you defend yourself from perceived threats. If you don't perceive them, you can't defend against them. So, following your logic through, I guess you think the Holocaust was justified because Hitler saw the Jews as a threat.
no one believes anymore than Saddam had WMD Including the weapons inspectors themselves. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3323633.stm)

And this point it becomes obvious that there is no principled opposition. The only ones crying foul are doing so out of hatred for Bush or for America in general. This is the kind of rhetoric that I find irresponsible, and if anything, the most cowardly defense to hide behind: Bush being criticized = attack on America; or if you don't agree with Bush, then you must hate us; so you are with us or against us. This whole argument is an attempt to mute debate. This is what I was commenting on in a previous post. It is circular: if you won't help us eradicate evil, then must be evil yourself, because you either hate Bush or hate America, and thus, you embrace evil. This is nothing more than aggressive nationalism in its purest form.
The idea of a preemptive war to eradicate "evil" in the world is unprecedented in American tradition. The reason is simple: because the value system used to define good and evil, by any standard, is decided by the those actually wielding power.
Thus, any moral argument, assuming the test of evil, wherever it may be found in the world, is based solely at the whims of those making policy decisions. It is a dangerous trek down that road of "shooting first and asking questions later," because the "questions later" part of the equation is never allowed. If you have to ask, then you are not with us. Therefore you must be...

[ December 17, 2003, 06:54: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

as Taluntain notes.... "astounding success"??? What astounding success? The man is still on the loose, free to do as he pleases, with the US no closer to finding him than they ever were.

I think it's quite clear to most that the Iraq invasion was nothing more than a smokescreen to divert American's attention from an ASTOUNDING FAILURE (with some oil of course to make it go down better).

and Chandos.....well said.

Grey Magistrate, you get the premises right and the inference is valid, but it breeds a conclusion that the war on Iraq and the invasion was in case terrorist would buy weapons from Iraq, ergo: blasting Iraq so that terrorists couldn'y buy weapons from there.

There are two problems here:

1 This doesn't look similar to what the US officially says.

2 Where's Saddam's responsibility for 9/11, which is sort of dogma in common reception?

@ Chev - good points - especially #2.

In fact, it has been pretty much determined that there were no connection between the 9/11 terrorists and Iraq/Iran/North Korea.

No, the reason we attacked Afghanistan was to bring down a government that was helping terrorists. We did so. That's called a success. We always knew that Osama could and probably would move. So what?

Chandos, I'm waiting for someone to tell me why they're so vehement. All I could come up with was Bush or America hatred (you've already proven yourself in the former category). But I'm open to hearing more. So far all I've gotten is "we don't like how it was done."

It seems to me that if that were true then everyone at the UN would be moving a lot faster to help get Iraq on its feet again. If it were just a procedural issue, then people wouldn't be comparing Bush to Hitler.

No, the reason we attacked Afghanistan was to bring down a government that was helping terrorists. We did so. That's called a success. We always knew that Osama could and probably would move. So what?You got your facts mixed up, as usual. Taking down the Taliban government was merely a side effect of the hunt for Osama. Since they wouldn't let the US in to make a search for him, or search for him themselves, the US had to take the Talibans down to open the front door in Afghanistan. How quickly some people forget.

Also, I don't want to see any more unfounded accusations of Bush/America hatred from you again. You were already told to go read the AoDA sticky where there are a couple of paragraphs dedicated to this exact issue. I'm sure everyone here who doesn't support Bush as you do takes offence at your false accusations of hate. There's a big difference between hate and criticism you're obviously unwilling to acknowledge, since throwing that "hate" insult serves you well in your discussions.

I suppose I should ignore your own personal attack, eh? "You got your facts mixed up, as usual."

I don't buy your statement that the reason we went after the Taliban was simply to get Osama. Do you have any proof of that? As I recall (and maybe we can get some other posters with sources or better memories in here), the problem with the Taliban is that they refused to help us look for him or allow us to look in Afghanistan ourselves.

In other words, we had a mission to find Osama and one of the things we had to do in the hunt for him was take out the Taliban. It was part of the "huntin' for Osama" mission, but not its sum total.

As per the rules, if you have a problem with something an Administrator or Moderator says to you on the boards, you are to take up the problem with that mod/admin in a PM, not on the boards. Alternatively, another mod or admin can always be reached by way of PM.

You may have been excused for the issue involving Extremist, but you're getting yourself into hot water in other ways. To give you fair warning, there is only so much an SP member can get away with before its "bye-bye".

Incidentally, you know where to reach me in private if you have a problem with this warning.

um...Shralp....your argument makes no sense at all. In fact you're arguing against yourself! Read your post!!!

As I recall (and maybe we can get some other posters with sources or better memories in here), the problem with the Taliban is that they refused to help us look for him or allow us to look in Afghanistan ourselves.
In other words, we had a mission to find Osama and one of the things we had to do in the hunt for him was take out the Taliban. It was part of the "huntin' for Osama" mission, but not its sum total. um... how is that different from what Tal said?

Taking down the Taliban government was merely a side effect of the hunt for Osama. Since they wouldn't let the US in to make a search for him, or search for him themselves, the US had to take the Talibans down to open the front door in Afghanistan. ???? You just seem to be confirming Taluntain's arguments, which are correct, btw. Since your argument really isn't one, I'm not sure what you're trying to say....it may just be a case of factual dementia, I guess.

@Spellbound
it may just be a case of factual dementia There seems to be an epidemic of this in the Alley. :D

Heh. No, Spellbound, but I admit I could have done a better job explaining it. Let me try again:

We had a larger mission: Find or kill Osama. That mission has not succeeded yet.

As part of the effort in that mission, we took out the Taliban. That little side mission succeeded.

[For the information of others: I have indeed contacted Beren regarding the accuracy of what he wrote above.]

[ December 18, 2003, 16:09: Message edited by: Shralp ]

You are still confirming Taluntain's argument. You initially said:

No, the reason we attacked Afghanistan was to bring down a government that was helping terrorists. We did so. That's called a success. Quite a bit different from your current version of "success":

We had a larger mission: Find or kill Osama. That mission has not succeeded yet. As part of the effort in that mission, we took out the Taliban. That little side mission succeeded.
It's pointless to continue this he said/she said logical argument, but in my opinion, taking the other side's argument in a debate only works if you understand the difference between the two.

Well, according to George Bush (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2001/10/mil-011007-usia01.htm) the objectives in afghanistan were:</font> Destruction of the Al Quaeda infrastructure Capture of Bin Laden Ending terrorist activities in AfghanistanThe US did indeed drive the Taleban away with the Northern Alliance, but the fights weren't half as easy as reported. And the US did not defeat the Taleban, they withdrew, under heavy losses, to reform and fight another day. What they did. Today the Taleban, far from defeated, have reformed and retook a few provinces in Afghanistan, aid workers get assassinated on a regular basis to undermine international support, Al Quaeda has been beaten hard but seemingly has reformed, Bin Laden is still on the loose ...

IMO the best way to judge success is by the original objectives at the time you started operations.
Insofar: Stunning success? Aren't you putting the mark for success a little low Shralp?