Saddam's Execution

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Watch Keith Olbermann's show, Countdown. It's on MSNBC every week night at eight. I try to watch it every time it's on, and it's very good. Most shows on MSNBC are pretty good - Hardball, Scarborough Country, Tucker... so I don't see what's to complain about.

I'll stick to the BBC for my televised news, thank you.

[Totenkopf]

No. No need for personal comments, either.

 

Slightly. But given that America has effectively treated this country as a vassal and invaded our sovereignty several times in recent memory (the Natwest Three extradition, the Iraq invasion, the 'Yo Blair' incident all spring to mind...), I hardly think I'm being so paranoid.

 

I was referring to opinions voiced by GodSlayer in previous posts.

 

Nope. Got no problems with Canada. Wouldn't have any problems with South America if the nations therein were more stable.

 

No, but partly altruistic ones would be nice to see.

 

Perhaps. But eventually all despots are de-throned.

 

Invade? No. But wars can be fought by other means. I call attention to Gazprom.

 

So you're repeating all our mistakes now! Wonderful!

 

Mhm. Godwin!

Seriously, WWII was an entirely different kettle of fish. There, the problem was not contained or indeed particularly low-level.

 

Never did. And sometimes leaving a wound to heal naturally is better than picking at it endlessly.

Well, for the revolution, the 'no taxation' claim was not entirely fair, since, IIRC we were still running at a loss paying for protection for you because you p----- off the natives. But that's a discussion for another thread.

 

I don't remember an invasion from my own historical studies, or in fact from a quick scan of the Wikipedia history of the US...unless you refer to the Southern Theatre and defeat culminating at Yorktown?

 

Exactly, because (a) The Labour Party doesn't listen, and (b) your government is using us as a vassal state in this case, and so we have no authority, or you'll call in the debts of accepting the Marshall Plan or somesuch.

 

Ok, first off, I was being a lit flip, no personal offense intended. Just expressing a little incredulity at your position. However, it's irrelevant as to whether you were making a reply to Godslayer, b/c I was only pointing out your mistake:

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by GodSlayer

You know, I live in the UK,

 

Quote: Darth Insidious

No you don't, you're Scottish. I thought it was all vive l'independance with you...No?

 

Sooo....you're "slightly" paranoid about the US and uneasy about S. America. I'm not sure what you mean by America being paranoid about the UK. Can't say I've often heard anyone express anything really bad about the UK over here, beyond the hoary jokes about British dentistry or comments about your quisine. Frankly, I believe that most Americans, rightly or wrongly, believe that Britain is as close to a friend as we have in Europe. Maybe you could explain exactly what you mean.

 

As regards Gazprom, are you implying economic "warfare" (as compared to the military kind) as a means of coercion?

 

Godwin is kind of a throwaway here because the reference is meaningless. Other than to point out the Hitler has somehow been mentioned, it doesn't do anything to invalidate any point. The reason that can be mentioned is because it's such a prime example of what happens when people ignore things in hope that they'll go away. Hitler was merely a looming threat in the 30's, when something could have been done, but wasn't. Time will tell if Santayana's curse proves correct.

 

Actually, there wasn't really an "us" back then, we were part of "you". But the invasion in question is often referred to as the War of 1812. Britain's impressment gangs ultimately helped push the US toward war with it's former "lord and master". This, apparently, was a war that was unnecessary in the end. The policies that England engaged in which led to the conflict were ended a mere 2 days before the war was declared. Oddly enough, the last battle of the war was fought some months after it had officially ended. Pesky time lags in communication. So, while the US sought to remove Canada from England's control in retaliation (a failed land campaign), it was the British who actually invaded US soil. So, technically, England invaded the US, while the US has still yet to return the favor.

 

Curious, though, as to what despots have been dethroned without some kind of outside help? Also, about how frequently despots have been deposed from within by the oppressed (and not by a new set of oppressors --think Lenin and company). Not Japan, where the Tokugawa were overthrown with the help of western nations. Obviously not Saddam. Stalin was poisoned, but the machinery of oppression remained in place. The PRC is still ruled by the communist party. Mussolini was only overthrown b/c the Italians were losing. It's kind of hard to find examples of where a people have been able to overthrow their masters without some kind of outside help, directly or not. Don't see how the "wound" in Iraq would have "healed naturally". With the demise of SH (by natural causes), he'd have been succeeded by the next generation of sadists. Unlikely that a thoroughly frightened public would have any more effective at overthrowing them then their father.

 

As to your whole point about America taking off after England, it's quite fanciful. For that to happen, the UK would first have to be overtaken by radical islam (or some suitably hardcore anti-US group) and then starting messing with the US. Barring that, it's quite bloody unlikely. Besides, despite the UK's storied past, if the US went after the UK for spurious reasons as you seem to imply, much of the world would turn on the US b/c it would be viewed as a betrayal of enormous proportions. If America would turn on the UK, they might say, who WOULDN'T they turn on.

 

Please explain exactly how your country's sovreignty was "effectively" trampled on in these incidents. Could it just be that your leader's are weak and indecisive? As to altruism, I wasn't implying it never factored in at any point, just that it tends to take a backseat in overall calculations. Foreign aid is part altruism and part politics.

 

He and his friends have made a ****load of cash and will have to pay an ever-so-slight portion of it in taxes. He's accomplished what he most likely ran for President to get - money.[/Quote]

 

Well, now that he seems to have his "oil money", he can hang out more with Bubba (with his china cash) after his term ends.

[The Source]

What people don't know is: There is a hidden war going on within the United States government. Over the past several decades, the United States government has been deeply seeded with corporations and special interest groups. These corporations believe they can control the will of the people. When we first started off, the common educated man could have become president. Now, you have to have deep pockets, do political favors, and sleep with the enemy. Regardless about who you vote for as President, the winner will be loyal to oil, electric, or big buisness. Last year, I took an ethics class and discovered some interesting things. Our government has been standing by while other countries get ahead of us technologically. It turns out that China and Japan are ten to twenty years ahead of the US in internet technologies, environmental concerns, alternative resources, sciences, and mathamatics. On top of that, those countries can do everything cheaper.

 

Verizon and AT&T are holding us back from fulll implimentation of fiber-optics, which moves a thousand times faster than current connections. Plus it is cheaper. The telecommunication companies have been holding us back for years.

 

Exxon Model and Shell are refussing to leave oil behind, so they force the government to prolong our need for changes. We are not behind in finding alternative energy sources, we are behind because large corporations don't want us off oil and gas.

 

According to another source, there was an attempt in copywritting the worfds "Merry Christmas". If someone on the street used the phrase, they could have been sued big money. I think the ACLU stepped in. Poland Springs Water and others are fighting to copywrite the word, "Water".

 

There is a lot more, but I am afraid it will make you all sick. Lets put it this way: The 2000 Presidential election misshaps were not a fluke.

 

Keep in mind that the Iraq War served two purposes: 1. Remove a dictator. 2. Fight a war that the corportation wanted us to fight. (Oil) Otherwords, people are dying for big buisness and not for God and country.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Well, now that he seems to have his "oil money", he can hang out more with Bubba (with his china cash) after his term ends.

Please, indulge me, what has he done that hasn't been in his tax-bracket's interests? And given his birthplace in Connecticut, I'd say he'd be hanging out with someone who was cursed with a waspier name than "Bubba".

[The Source]

I just edited the thread name, so we can still be on track. We can't talk about one without mentioning the other, so I changed the name to reflect our conversations.

Topics: Saddam's Execution & The U.S. Government

[Totenkopf]

Please, indulge me, what has he done that hasn't been in his tax-bracket's interests? And given his birthplace in Connecticut, I'd say he'd be hanging out with someone who was cursed with a waspier name than "Bubba".

 

 

Sorry dude, but what's your point exactly? You were being flip (or perhaps sarcastic/caustic) and I played off of it. So, what's the problem?

[Darth InSidious]

Ok, first off, I was being a lit flip, no personal offense intended. Just expressing a little incredulity at your position. However, it's irrelevant as to whether you were making a reply to Godslayer, b/c I was only pointing out your mistake:

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by GodSlayer

You know, I live in the UK,

 

Quote: Darth Insidious

No you don't, you're Scottish. I thought it was all vive l'independance with you...No?

Yep, just pointing out he advocated Scottish independence, and then claimed to live in the UK...see where I'm going?

Sooo....you're "slightly" paranoid about the US and uneasy about S. America. I'm not sure what you mean by America being paranoid about the UK. Can't say I've often heard anyone express anything really bad about the UK over here, beyond the hoary jokes about British dentistry or comments about your quisine. Frankly, I believe that most Americans, rightly or wrongly, believe that Britain is as close to a friend as we have in Europe. Maybe you could explain exactly what you mean.

So there is no somewhat uncomfortable feeling about a country ruled by a monarch and perhaps a suspicion of our motives? What about the fact that we were ditched from the Joint Intelligence Fighter project IIRC because we were a 'security threat', or the heavy-handed manner in which your foreign minister treated Ernest Bevin? Suez? Is/was there no suspicion at all of our imperialism and empire/imperial past? Of the fact that, as you yourself say, we invaded your country once, you wrested your freedom from us?

Are you saying there is no lingering mistrust in your halls of power or your national consciousness?

As regards Gazprom, are you implying economic "warfare" (as compared to the military kind) as a means of coercion?

Not implying, stating.

Godwin is kind of a throwaway here because the reference is meaningless.

Yep. It was a joke.

Other than to point out the Hitler has somehow been mentioned, it doesn't do anything to invalidate any point. The reason that can be mentioned is because it's such a prime example of what happens when people ignore things in hope that they'll go away. Hitler was merely a looming threat in the 30's, when something could have been done, but wasn't. Time will tell if Santayana's curse proves correct.

It's a moot point, though, since Hitler was a direct threat, whereas Hussein was not.

Actually, there wasn't really an "us" back then, we were part of "you". But the invasion in question is often referred to as the War of 1812. Britain's impressment gangs ultimately helped push the US toward war with it's former "lord and master". This, apparently, was a war that was unnecessary in the end. The policies that England engaged in which led to the conflict were ended a mere 2 days before the war was declared. Oddly enough, the last battle of the war was fought some months after it had officially ended. Pesky time lags in communication. So, while the US sought to remove Canada from England's control in retaliation (a failed land campaign), it was the British who actually invaded US soil. So, technically, England invaded the US, while the US has still yet to return the favor.

You were the ones who declared war...

Curious, though, as to what despots have been dethroned without some kind of outside help? Also, about how frequently despots have been deposed from within by the oppressed (and not by a new set of oppressors --think Lenin and company). Not Japan, where the Tokugawa were overthrown with the help of western nations. Obviously not Saddam. Stalin was poisoned, but the machinery of oppression remained in place.

It collapsed on it's own in the late '80's/early 90's, though.

The PRC is still ruled by the communist party. Mussolini was only overthrown b/c the Italians were losing. It's kind of hard to find examples of where a people have been able to overthrow their masters without some kind of outside help, directly or not. Don't see how the "wound" in Iraq would have "healed naturally". With the demise of SH (by natural causes), he'd have been succeeded by the next generation of sadists. Unlikely that a thoroughly frightened public would have any more effective at overthrowing them then their father.

Point, but rushing into a military invasion without proper planning or perhaps requesting advice of those who have knowledge of these situations was not terribly wise, and now you know why we *hadn't* gone rushing in and sorted out, to take an example, Iraq.

As to your whole point about America taking off after England, it's quite fanciful. For that to happen, the UK would first have to be overtaken by radical islam (or some suitably hardcore anti-US group)

Define 'hard-core anti-US group'. It would seem to me that saying 'no, sod off' to your country counts as being hardcore and anti-US to your government.

and then starting messing with the US.

Define 'messing'.

Barring that, it's quite bloody unlikely. Besides, despite the UK's storied past, if the US went after the UK for spurious reasons as you seem to imply, much of the world would turn on the US b/c it would be viewed as a betrayal of enormous proportions. If America would turn on the UK, they might say, who WOULDN'T they turn on.

Czechoslovakia, 1938/'39.

Please explain exactly how your country's sovreignty was "effectively" trampled on in these incidents.

Maybe because your government kidnapped people from my country without so much as a by-your-leave, or the simple good grace to provide prima faciae evidence, that your government didn't have the simple honesty to make the latest extradition treaty unilateral, the fact that your president calls the shots for our PM? Oh, no, those would be *ridiculous* examples.

Could it just be that your leader's are weak and indecisive?

In part, but is it not also indicative that yours are corrupt, amoral bastards?

As to altruism, I wasn't implying it never factored in at any point, just that it tends to take a backseat in overall calculations. Foreign aid is part altruism and part politics.

If it's there at all, I'd be surprised.

[Negative Sun]

Yep. Hence the Natwest Three row...

Lol, I don't think I'm quite in their league yet though...

 

Quite possibly, although the Senate and House of Representatives can't *all* be ch- what do you mean, 'it's based on the Westminster system'?

Touche

 

We have a trillion dollar economy, and I doubt the whole world would rail against the US over the taking of a country which has been damned annoying in the past, and also at one point believed itself to be the world police...

Good point, but I still don't think the world would stand idly by while the US tries to invade the UK, no matter how annoying the UK might have been in the past, it's still protected by NATO and the EU and all that, the other countries would have to see it as a huge act of treason and aid the UK accordingly...

 

Pharaonic Egypt. And my bias is because I'm an Egyptologist

Fair enough, I agree with that, Ancient Egypt is indeed better than the Roman and Greek Empires, and it is a shame it's influence didn't go as far as the others did...

 

True enough. Just don't by the E.V. Rieu translations...they're pretty dry...

OK...

 

Well, assuming the average number of casualties has remained the same, the fact that there was electricity and running water, electricity was subsidised by the state, there was stability...Admittedly small trade-offs for an amoral and evil regime, but compared to what there is now, some would argue Iraq was better off before...

Some would indeed say that, but again, because the war has happened, there is no way of knowing what WOULD have happened had Saddam stayed in power, so yet again it is down to opinion...

 

Yep, just pointing out he advocated Scottish independence, and then claimed to live in the UK...see where I'm going?

Yeah, but the UK is still a fact though, no matter how much I or anyone else would like to change that, we still depend on those windbags at Westminster...

[Ctrl Alt Del]

i dont know if anyone here knows this but the biggest reason bush sent troops to iraq was revenge plain and simple

 

Anyway, wants to see a point of view from outside US and EU? The reason for invading Iraq was... oil, plain and simple. I still remember before the war, the United Nations (an entite that has lost all of its credibility under late Annan's rule) had all evidences that proved that Iraq did not have any ICBMs or whatever, and any involvement with the terror.

 

Even then, the US refused to accept truth, and proceeded on an operation that would end Iraqs governemment in a few days, but bond US and the Middle East even more

 

True, even if the project is still crawling, I thank God for our new bio-fuel.

[TK-8252]

I see no evidence that the invasion of Iraq was simply about oil. While it may have played a role in the lead-up to the invasion ("oil would pay for the war"), the neocons have been pushing for regime changes throughout the world, including in Iraq, for a long time now. Bush basically was brainwashed by neocons after 9/11 into thinking that invading Iraq would be "neat," easy, he'd be a big hero, and that it would be revenge for 9/11 - getting back at an Arab leader, since Osama is too hard to get at. Or something.

[Ctrl Alt Del]

I see no evidence that the invasion of Iraq was simply about oil. While it may have played a role in the lead-up to the invasion ("oil would pay for the war"), the neocons have been pushing for regime changes throughout the world, including in Iraq, for a long time now. Bush basically was brainwashed by neocons after 9/11 into thinking that invading Iraq would be "neat," easy, he'd be a big hero, and that it would be revenge for 9/11 - getting back at an Arab leader, since Osama is too hard to get at. Or something.

 

 

That too.

 

And about the american prescence there, I dont know how the americans must feel, but retreating from Iraq now would be, at least, irresponsibilty. I mean, they invaded a stable country (ruthless, maybe, but at least there was order there), took out a ditactorial government, messed up the entire region, and now they wanna return home? I dont think this is reasonable, not at all.

[Jeff]

I'm glad he's gone, but I'd rather see him in some high-security prison to rot the rest of his life.

[Darth InSidious]

Lol, I don't think I'm quite in their league yet though...

True, but the principle still remains...Other interesting bits of US law to watch out for include, as I recall, that an American citizen can call in an air-strike on their location, wherever they are...

Good point, but I still don't think the world would stand idly by while the US tries to invade the UK, no matter how annoying the UK might have been in the past, it's still protected by NATO and the EU and all that,

NATO might cause a small pause for thought, but the EU is too corrupt, slow, fat and cumbersome to have any real effect.

the other countries would have to see it as a huge act of treason and aid the UK accordingly...

Sorry, but I place less faith in human nature than you.

Fair enough, I agree with that, Ancient Egypt is indeed better than the Roman and Greek Empires, and it is a shame it's influence didn't go as far as the others did...

It was partly their own fault. They weren't really that interested in the rest of the world provided the tribute from their Empire kept flowing in...

Some would indeed say that, but again, because the war has happened, there is no way of knowing what WOULD have happened had Saddam stayed in power, so yet again it is down to opinion...

True.

Yeah, but the UK is still a fact though, no matter how much I or anyone else would like to change that, we still depend on those windbags at Westminster...

Indeed...OTOH, are the windbags in Edinburgh that different?

[lukeiamyourdad]

It's quite late for me to enter the debate, so I will not specifically quote anyone. It would serve no real purpose in expressing my point.

 

First off, the issue of the US "World Police" and the EU "sitting on its butt". It's fun and all, but all both parties do is place blame on each other while nothing constructive is being done. One side says it can't fix everything, the other repeats the same speech. One side says it doesn't have enough resources, the other says the same thing. Odd eh? A very nice vicious circle. By the way, if Americans hate to be referred to as a unified homogeneous block, why talk like if Europe was? That is all.

 

Second, placing blame on the American people. Though somewhat unfair to the ones getting the blame, to outsiders, seeing as the people elect their leaders in a democracy, they become imputable with the actions of the government. That's what it looks like to outsiders. Not saying it's the right way or the wrong way of seeing it, it just is how it's seen.

 

Now, on to best civilization. Seriously kids, don't try to discuss this. All civilizations have good things and bad things. There's no "perfect" one. At least, not everyone will agree with you. And that's the problem. As for the Roman Republic, I need to remind everyone that, according to historians, it ceased to exist when Julius Caesar became imperator. Some say Augustus was the first Emperor but it doesn't matter, the system disappeared. Although on paper and in roman minds it still subsisted, in fact, it didn't.

 

Next in order, Iraqi better off with Saddam. Hard to debate and a philosophical question. Is it better to have peace without freedom then unrest with freedom? After all, in Hobbes' State of Nature, men was 100% free and because of that, anarchy resulted. Westerners cannot live without "freedom". It's a western-centric vision to assume that everyone else thinks the same. In fact, it is very possible to live without freedom. Is live less enjoyable? There is no answer all can agree on or at least one that could gather a global consensus.

 

Next, legitimacy. Someone mentioned Saddam not having been elected and by such force he was an illegitimate ruler. How so? In a democracy, yes, elections give legitimacy to a government. It goes back to western-centric vision claiming that everything exists in one unique way. What is wrong and what is right is dictated by the West. Legitimacy stems from many sources: by arms (Saddam), by God (think old absolute monarchy), by society's will (democracy or simple consensus), etc. Thailand is a very interesting example for this. Everyone remembers the putsch last autumn? Why did the people accept it? Why did a democracy accept an undemocratic act? Because the king said so. The king is the legitimate ruler of Thailand and is accepted and respected by the vast majority of the populace. It gave the putsch its legitimacy. It becomes debatable then when someone claims anyone as a legitimate ruler. Legitimacy is generally lost when the people decide to depose the ruler. Call it democracy if you want, but it could always be social consensus. And that's not exactly the "will of the people" either.

 

Lastly, "doing something before it's too late". Who are our Nostradamus wannabees here? This preventive strike philosophy is idiotic. How can anyone predict what someone else is going to do? How can one be sure that what he is doing is the "right" thing? Even if your intentions were noble, if the result is a bad one, did you do the "right" thing?

 

That's all I can think about for now. The rest, in my eyes, seems like a big amount of futile discussion and debate.

[TK-8252]

Second, placing blame on the American people. Though somewhat unfair to the ones getting the blame, to outsiders, seeing as the people elect their leaders in a democracy, they become imputable with the actions of the government. That's what it looks like to outsiders. Not saying it's the right way or the wrong way of seeing it, it just is how it's seen.

 

Well to be fair, we didn't directly elect Bush in 2000. Al Gore won the popular vote. Bush was imposed on us by our own government.

[Jae Onasi]

Well to be fair, we didn't directly elect Bush in 2000. Al Gore won the popular vote. Bush was imposed on us by our own government.

 

[Civics lesson]

Bush won the electoral vote, even though Gore won the popular vote. Bush won narrowly in many of the states that had the most electoral votes and lost big in some of the states where there were far fewer electors, and that made all the difference.

 

Presidents actually are not elected by the popular vote, they're elected by the electoral vote. So, technically _no_ President is ever 'directly' elected by popular vote, though the winner of both the popular and electoral votes almost always is the same. Changing or eliminating the electoral system would require changing the Constitution (something you can always ask your legislators about). Those of us who voted for Gore weren't too happy with how it all played out, but Bush's election was legal. We have to abide by the Constitution, even if we don't like how it works out sometimes. If it's a really bad law, then we need to work to amend it. If we try to arbitrarily ignore it, however, it'll become a worthless document. I'd rather not spurn the Constitution for just 1 person who's going to sit in the hot seat for only 4 or 8 years out of our entire history. The US and the Constitution are bigger than just the President.

[/Civics Lesson]

[TK-8252]

hose of us who voted for Gore weren't too happy with how it all played out, but Bush's election was legal.

 

Certainly it was legal, but not democratic. The people chose Al Gore, not Bush. Yet Bush took office.

[Titanius Anglesmith]

To the best of my memory, there was quite a bit of proven voter fraud going on, especially down there in Florida where ol' Jeb is in charge.

[Jae Onasi]

Certainly it was legal, but not democratic. The people chose Al Gore, not Bush. Yet Bush took office.

 

Yes, but the Constitution states it's the _electors_, who are chosen by the popular vote within that state, who choose the president, not the voters directly. The voters cast their ballots, and the winner of the popular vote in that state determines whose electors get to vote for the President. So in Wisconsin, if Gore won the popular vote, all of the electors from Wisconsin, not just some, would vote for Gore when the Electoral College convened to select the President. Usually it works out that the winner of the popular vote is also the winner of the electoral vote. 2000 was an aberration. Gore won big in some states and lost narrowly in others. Unfortunately, he lost narrowly in states with a lot of electors, like Texas, Ohio, and Florida. The electoral votes don't follow the election results nationwide, they follow who wins the election in that particular state. Since Bush got a few more votes in FL, he won _all_ the electoral votes, not the proportional amount. If he had won proportional electors in all states, Gore would have been President. However, the electoral system doesn't work that way. The winner of each state gets (usually) all those electoral votes.

 

The electors were chosen democratically, and the Constitution was ratified democratically, and the election, whether we like it or not (and I certainly didn't), was democratic. The Electoral system can be changed democratically via amendment of the Constitution.

 

If Gore had taken the Presidency, he would have done so in violation of the Constitution. Not a great way to start a Presidency. I wanted Gore as President, but not at the expense of our own laws.

 

@EagerWeasel--'ol Jeb can try, but he can never come close to touching the Democratic machine in Chicago, where the concept of 'vote early, and vote often' is still (unoffically, of course) in effect. If Gore had won IL by a narrow margin, you can bet the GOP would have been investigating (and finding) tremendous voter fraud. There's fraud happening on both sides, and it needs to be cleaned up on both sides.

[Totenkopf]

Yeah, and where vote often didn't end at the coffin. Funny thing that. But seriously, the US has not been and is not a democracy. It's a democratic republic. That's a slight but significant difference. Also, it isn't the first time that a president has "lost" the popular vote, but won anyway.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------

 

"Yep, just pointing out he advocated Scottish independence, and then claimed to live in the UK...see where I'm going?"

 

Guess it might have made more sense had he said he WANTED to live in the UK.

 

"So there is no somewhat uncomfortable feeling about a country ruled by a monarch and perhaps a suspicion of our motives? What about the fact that we were ditched from the Joint Intelligence Fighter project IIRC because we were a 'security threat', or the heavy-handed manner in which your foreign minister treated Ernest Bevin? Suez? Is/was there no suspicion at all of our imperialism and empire/imperial past? Of the fact that, as you yourself say, we invaded your country once, you wrested your freedom from us? Are you saying there is no lingering mistrust in your halls of power or your national consciousness?"

 

I don't think anyone could claim that everyone in power (in any country, really) would completely trust even their own allies. All nations routinely commit espionage (both commercial and military) against each other, allies or not. Lord Palmerston noted in the 19th century that nations have no permanent friends, only interests. Your own history is proof of that. Not only have your relations with the US flipped from bad to (generally good), but the totality of your relations with France or even Russia have been marked with periods of alliance and hostility. As to Bevin and Suez, that most likely had to due with the new paradigm of cold war realities and what appear to have been reactions to how Bevin conducted himself with regards to the whole Zionist question.

 

This might sound cynical or cruel to you, but aside from the UK's nuke capability, it doesn't present a physical threat to the US. Though you may have a $trillion+ economy at present, the US would be better set to turn on Canada (proximity) for its natural resources than try to invade England (which you seemed to be suggesting) if we wanted to just start taking over the world. Unless things change dramatically in the near future, the UK is primarily the land of "quaint/charming accents" and the home of the Royal Family and James Bond to the average American. Possibly even much of the world.

 

"It's a moot point, though, since Hitler was a direct threat, whereas Hussein was not."

 

Sorry, but that's a little too convenient. Hitler was an unrecognized threat well into the mid30s. Hitler didn't become a direct threat, technically, till 1939.

 

"You were the ones who declared war..."

 

Perhaps, but you were the ones behaving in a heavy handed manner, much like what you accuse the US of today. In an eerily similiar circumstance. The Natwest three were extradited by the US, but then many American sailors were forcibly shanghaied by the Royal Navy without any type of due process either. Bad karma I suppose.

 

"It collapsed on it's own in the late '80's/early 90's, though."

 

Yes, but not all of its own accord. The 80's/early 90s were the Reagan years and the accelerated defense buildup helped convince ole Gorby that the USSR just couldn't compete without reform (or so he believed). It didn't happen in a vacuum.

 

"Point, but rushing into a military invasion without proper planning or perhaps

requesting advice of those who have knowledge of these situations was not terribly wise, and now you know why we *hadn't* gone rushing in and sorted out, to take an example, Iraq."

 

It might surprise you, but here we are somewhat in agreement. It's even ironic, in a way, because of the two political parties in this country, it's the dems that push for nation building types of operations, not reps. But then, many would argue in this country that W is a dem in disguise. Regardless, the operation should have been much better planned and executed. Always remember, Mr Murphy has his hands in everything (Murphy's law--anything that can go wrong, will).

 

"Define 'hard-core anti-US group'. It would seem to me that saying 'no, sod off' to your country counts as being hardcore and anti-US to your government."

 

Explain, then, why we didn't invade Japan when they kept US cattle out of their market. Why we haven't yet tried to take over Canada despite multiple trade disputes? How about Mexico, Cuba or even more recently, Venezuela? As to messing, that would probably constitute government support of enemy activities (terrorist or other in nature) against the US. Muslim fundies would be one type, any others would in essence be parties that sought to put England in direct conflict (terrorist/ military) with America. Perhaps England need its own Shintaro Ishihara.

 

"Czechoslovakia, 1938/'39."

 

Not sure here if you're saying the US didn't betray Czech in '38/39 or that b/c the UK did, it would be like England getting it's just desserts should the US just "absorb" it.

 

"Maybe because your government kidnapped people from my country without so much as a by-your-leave, or the simple good grace to provide prima faciae evidence, that your government didn't have the simple honesty to make the latest extradition treaty unilateral, the fact that your president calls the shots for our PM? Oh, no, those would be *ridiculous* examples."

 

Not sure how you support kidnapped as a description. I've read several articles on this and find nothing to support such a claim. Besides, even your own government admits that it has been easier in the past to extradite someone to Britain than from it. excerpt follows:

 

In response to the suggestion that a former US ambassador had said that extraditing the Natwest three was a political decision by the government, as the treaty had not yet been ratified by the US senate, the PMOS said, without commenting on the specific details of the case, that was based on a misconception. This misconception was that we had in some way given a unilateral concession to the United States. That was not true. In the past the US had actually faced a higher threshold of evidence when it had sought to extradite people from the UK when compared to the threshold other countries had to cross, or indeed the threshold the UK had to cross when extraditing people from US to the UK.

 

"In part, but is it not also indicative that yours are corrupt, amoral bastards?"

 

You mean stronger, corrupt amoral bastards vs weaker ones?

 

If it's (altruism) there at all, I'd be surprised.

 

Well, being pretty cynical myself, Id agree that it's never going to be the main ingredient in any policy decision, domestic or foreign.

[Jae Onasi]

Yeah, and where vote often didn't end at the coffin. Funny thing that.

Well, you know, with God and the late Richard J. Daley, all things are possible.

 

But seriously, the US has not been and is not a democracy. It's a democratic republic. That's a slight but significant difference.

Meh, democracy, democratic republic, same difference.

US History I was never my favorite class, anyway. In fact, I put it off until my very last semester as an undergrad senior, I disliked it that much. Give me Renaissance history or history of science/medicine any day. Fortunately, I had a fun prof for that class.

 

Also, it isn't the first time that a president has "lost" the popular vote, but won anyway.

The others were in 1876 and 1888.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Yeah, and where vote often didn't end at the coffin. Funny thing that. But seriously, the US has not been and is not a democracy. It's a democratic republic. That's a slight but significant difference. Also, it isn't the first time that a president has "lost" the popular vote, but won anyway.

 

It's actually very important as no "true" democracy can be found in any modern society bigger then the tribal size.

 

It simply wasn't viable for large communities. Communist idealists have tried lately such small communities where democracy would reign without a leader. It worked...for a small number of individuals...oddly enough, when the number grew in the thousands, they started getting individualistic and thinking about their own self...you'd think communists...

 

That's why everyone has a system similar to a republic. So that the state can function without the populace having to vote every single day on all the issues, most that none would care about anyway.

[Negative Sun]

And if you don't like the way they handle things...a wee revolution here and there never hurt anyone (well it did, but you know what I mean;))

 

 

 

True, but the principle still remains...Other interesting bits of US law to watch out for include, as I recall, that an American citizen can call in an air-strike on their location, wherever they are...

Eh? lol

 

NATO might cause a small pause for thought, but the EU is too corrupt, slow, fat and cumbersome to have any real effect.

haha, true, but still, they wouldn't get away with it THAT easily...

 

Sorry, but I place less faith in human nature than you.

Wow, and I thought I was cynical lol

 

It was partly their own fault. They weren't really that interested in the rest of the world provided the tribute from their Empire kept flowing in...

Yeah, plus that part of the world has kinda been ravaged war only about a million times since lol

 

Indeed...OTOH, are the windbags in Edinburgh that different?

Touché, but at least they're Scottish windbags, if you get what I mean...

[Astrotoy7]

lolz @ this thread.

 

Firstly, everyone should take one of these:

 

 

Secondly: This thread has become very difficult to follow or contribute to. I work with Iraqi refugee families everyday, yet I feel I have nothing to add to this type of "debate"... I can make one comment though.

 

Alot of armchair generals and journalists. I'd daresay many of you:

 

1. Have never met an Iraqi person..

2. Have never met a Muslim, or do not know one closely.

3. Have never met with an Iraqi refugee or victim of torture.

4. Have never been to Iraq, or any Islamic nation.

5. Do not subscribe to nor participate within a charity, volunteer or aid organisation that specifically works with Islamic and/or Iraqi victims of the war.

 

It's all very good to talk, but I urge you to put your energies and passion into postive action. This arguing is pointless.

 

1. Join a volunteer organisation, recruit your friends, to work to support Iraqi refugees or citizens, as well as organisations that support the families of killed servicemen from your nation who fell in Iraq

2. Educate yourself and others about Islam and Iraq.

3. Visit a mosque. Visit a local islamic community group.

4. Read the Qu'ran/Koran. Read the Bible again. Notice the similarities ??

5. Speak to an Imam(Islamic clergyman) about Islam, and what you can do to promote education and brotherhood between Muslims and Christians.

6. Speak to a Christian clergyman about Islam and what you can do to promote education and brotherhood between Muslims and Christians.

 

The above things are *hard* to do, but each and all of them will place you in a better position to make an informed comment on the topic at hand. Unfortunately, CNN, BBC, Rueters etc(The Media in general) is *not* a good place to get your entire education about a subject. Would you visit a doctor who learnt everything from watching ER !(lolz) Sure, watch the news, but enhance this education by trying to connect with and understand the human part of the equation.

 

peace be with you all

[machievelli]

I may be a little rash when I say this, but if your feeling is correct, good for Saddam!! We all know Iraq was invaded under false pretenses and we all know it was never a threat to the US. Who knows if Saddam's trial was a real trial.

Don't kill me for this, I am not a supporter of any form of terrorism, but we can't be sure Saddam is one. Not by listening to the US media. Maybe I'm just rambling nonsense, maybe someone knows something I don't, but as far as I remember those supposed mobile weapon factories, or whatever, were never proven to have existed.

 

First: You are correct that the US had no legal authority to invade and conquer Iraq. (I speak as a student of military and international jurisprudence)

 

2nd: Whether the court was created thanks to the US interference or not, The crime he was accused of was a crime against humanity. If a man can get away with mass murder just because he hold a political office, then there is no such thing as justice.

 

3: Saddam may have been linked in a fashion to global Terrorist, but by the same token using the same rules so is the present US government

 

Was Iraq better under Saddam? Answer: only as Spock said because it was 'one team under one whip'.