quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem with your argument is that one covert attack against America could be catastrophic. You need to identify a potential attacker of the United States, not someone who is already attacking us. I still say Saddam fit the bill for this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But you cited a "pattern of behavior." There was no such pattern. Now you're back to sheer speculation.
So you are saying Saddam Hussein was a nice, non-aggressive world leader who showed a lot of promise? Are you saying if we find him still alive we should put him back in power and admit we were wrong?
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And actually they did plan at least one attack against President George Bush Sr. following the war, so you're wrong there also.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, I'm aware of this bogus claim, and have been since 1993, when Clinton used it as an excuse to launch a missile attack on Baghdad that killed 8 civilians. The NYT noted "that the judgment of Iraq's guilt was based on circumstantial evidence and analysis rather than ironclad intelligence." There was also a major New Yorker piece on this by Seymour Hersh, now posted here.
In any case, an alleged, failed assassination attempt in 1993 does not constitute grounds for invading a country in 2002. It does not even constitute a "pattern of behavior." Nor is it a terrorist attack on US soil. Your "reason" fails on all counts.
I looked through that article "proving" there was no plot. Looks like he was saying he could see as much cause for saying there wasn't an plot as there one. One article saying there was no plot in a sea of information. Big deal, it just sounds like more of this "speculation" you're so scared of. Why would Clinton strike Iraq with missiles if the pretext were so filmsy? It seemed to me when Clinton should have called for military action, he called for a few cruise missiles. And he should have called for military action then also.
I think such a plot is relevant, it certainly demonstrates the animosity Saddam's regime felt towards America. Planning a covert terrorist plot on American soil is definitely relevant.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you want to look at a pattern of behavior, how about this: Saddam had 12 years from Desert Shield to December 2002 to launch a terror attack against us. He never did. Not even when his regime faced certain destruction at our hands. Monster though he certainly is, he doesn't seem bent on terror attacks against the US.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can't suddenly launch a covert, coordinated terror attack. It's not a missle with a bunch of extremists tied to it, boorite.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So there is no pattern. In fact, the lack of a pattern is, oddly, in your world, evidence that a sudden attack could be launched. Another "paradox," no doubt.
I'm sorry that one time I used the word paradox shook you so much. Saddam was a dangerous leader, he gassed Kurds, he through political opponents into meat grinders, he had anyone he even suspected of being against him drug off and shot, he invaded a country, he continued to violate no-fly zones, he continued to illegally profit from oil sales, and there was evidence of WMD activity after inspections following the first Persian Gulf War. Yeah, sounds like this guy was a fucking modern day Jimmy Carter.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I still don't see how you confuse a country run by Saddam Hussein with a small peaceful nation in Europe. I'm glad your political powers are relegated to that of the reference section of the library.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I didn't confuse them. I said your "logic" could apply to practically any country we wished to invade, which you acknowledge just below.
If the leader of Luxemburg has done any of the above things I mentioned I would support removing that leader.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But that's the idea of the US's new doctrine: We can invade anyone, anytime, on any pretext. That's not an over-interpretation-- I think that's pretty much the policy, straight out.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, fine with me. I don't see how this is different that any other war we've been in anyway.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it's different from WWII. But the important point is, you've acknowledged the doctrine of violence at will. Thank you.
Yes, war is a vehicle of force, not words.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I still don't understand what law Congress passed that is being broken.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not sure how much clearer I can state that the Senate ratified the UN Charter in 1945.
So then why is the Supreme Court not doing anything? I'm confused.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, the President swears, on the Bible, in front of the whole world, to "preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States." Which is the opposite of ignoring and violating it. He is breaking the law that he is sworn to uphold. Surely even someone who confuses authoritarianism with democracy can understand the difference between upholding the law and breaking it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then why isn't he being impeached? Is it because most sane individuals don't believe this?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No US President who ever committed a war crime has ever been impeached for it, and that includes a lot of them. As I said, we'd be stupid to expect governments to indict themselves on crimes against humanity. It's usually up to us citizens to drum them out of office.
So you admit we are governing ourselves, even to the extent of determining when we need to go to war. Interesting. I also note the political climate of the country isn't anywhere near calling for the President to leave office. Even more interesting, don't you think?
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no Constitutional basis for securing life and liberty of American citizens?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no basis in the Constitution for abrogating treaties at will based on "preventive" notions of "protecting our security." Furthermore, I think it's pretty clear that the current war does not secure our life and liberty but places us at increased and unnecessary risk.
How is that clear? Also the Constitution does make it clear that we should be protected, how we do it is not stated. Precision air assault aren't mentioned in the Constitution, so what?
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then why bother caring about a U.N. mandate if the body is not democratic in nature?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See US Constitution.
But what's the point of applying a body's will -made up of undemocratic elements- (and elements who are not interested in our own security) to our own democracy? Was Saddam always fully cooperative with the U.N.?
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well has the Supreme Court struck down the law? No? Oh I guess it's still legal then.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That doesn't follow.
The law stands as long as the Supreme Court doesn't strike it down. So what law has been broken?
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Almost seems like ICJ is an ineffectual body. Interesting.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quite ineffectual when the most powerful nation in history defies it. Hilarious, isn't it? We call it ineffectual and see to it that this is so.
Maybe it's only purpose should be to serve our interests, if it can do nothing to stop us then.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wouldn't it embarass him if his political enemies had a call for his arrest though? Seems like someone would try to do this if there was a reasonable argument that he had broken a law.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You know very well that he has, whether someone tries to arrest him or not. I mean, who's going to arrest the President of the US?
You keep declaring that he has so obviously broken the law. What law did he break? Why can't you tell me?
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush declared war out in the open. What law did he break by doing this?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So did Tojo.
Again, I ask you what law he broke? Hello? The law of Boorite Must be Consulted on All Wars First?
---
Vote Jeb Bush 2008