OT-John Kerry

As a trained lawyer you should know that there is a principle that the law should be equally applied. (I am not a lawyer.) In other words you cannot bring the full weight of the law against a person when the law is not generally enforced just because you don't like him.

You gave a long list of things that you know and some of those things are indeed crimes. Many are of your accusations are quite correct. Others are not crimes at all. Giving money to the families of people who died in their struggle against Israeli oppression is not a crime, it is admirable We give money to US soldier's families that have died. It is normal to help the family of fallen soldiers.

All of the crimes and non-crimes that you list are commonly committed by many others around the world. There is little clamor from the accused (Bush) to go in and "fix" those problems. Indeed the noise about these crimes from the accused seems correlate with the friendliness of the criminal. This leads to my suspicion of the unjust application of the law.

So you see my problem, fellow juror. You feel that it is justified to punish in the most extreme manor someone that is no worse than a lot of other guys out there. Your long list of the crimes includes things that are not crimes at all but rather things that you don't like. They have violated laws that are rarely enforced. Is your disdain for this guy coloring your judgement?

Pete.

Reply to
Peter Reilley
Loading thread data ...

You know, it's fun sitting on the sidelines and watching this exchange, but I need to make a couple of points here:

Then, it is also the Senate and House Intelligence subcommittee's lie, and the lie of all elected officials who backed the President when they saw the same information he saw. Including John F Kerry.

Really. Prove it. You keep neglecting to include the fact that numerous UN resolutions stated that Hussein had WMDs, that there was no definitive proof that they were destroyed, and that ongoing intelligence showed they were still there. You wanna indict Bush for acting? Then, you better damned well be prepared to indict Clinton, Kennedy, Kerry, and the rest who believed the same intelligence reports.

Hardly, but nice try.

Reply to
Rick Chamberlain

What was happening was a lynching. Everyone got all fired up and rational voices and doubts were drowned out. Kerry is guilty too.

There can be no definitive proof that something was destroyed when it did not exist. Do you want to prove to me that you destroyed that nuke in your basement?

Clinton did not believe the reports enough to go to war. We now know that Clinton was right and Bush was wrong. They both read the same reports and one president did the right thing and the other did not.

Did that clear it up? Pete.

Reply to
Peter Reilley

Uh, yes, there can be. BTW, the stuff did exist. The US gave it to him before the '91 Gulf War to be used on Iranian troops. (Iran/Iraq War) He had stuff left over. THAT was the stuff he used on the Kurds after the US pulled out after the '91 War. Saddam claims he destroyed the stuff after that. Fine. Show us where. Show us the leftover destroyed parts.

I would show you the bomb casing, the materials, the fuel/fuel residue.

Reply to
rickb308nospam

Just like the president and his cronies. not that previous administrations or Americans in general were/are any different.

Abrasha

formatting link

Reply to
Abrasha

So you are pissed because the CIA wasn't 100% certain. So, what is your threshold of certainty. 80%, 90%, 95%, 98%?

You must live a very sheltered life if you can only act on 100% certainty.

See above.

Nope. Still not enough detail. Conspiracy kooks such as yourself typically crank out far more detailed bullshit that this. You are simply must try harder.

Strider

Reply to
Strider

On 29 Jan 2004 05:29:45 -0800, jim rozen brought forth from the murky depths:

Indirectly, they were. Just as they told me they didn't need me (lottery #53 during the draft for Nam), I watched the government and military gear down the fight poorly. As Congress snipped funding, the military stopped supporting troops already in nastyass situations, many of the troops died. Those who survived didn't survive intact. Most of the friends I had in high school came back either in body bags or as basket cases. If you think protestors don't have any cause and effect you're -entirely- wrong, Jim. The protestors got to the pols who screwed the troops already in action.

---------------------------------------------- CAUTION: Driver Legally B l o n d (e)

formatting link
Web Database Development =======================================================

Reply to
Larry Jaques

Tell me something, Abrasha. While I would not wish anything bad on anyone else in the world. In fact, wish them well.

Why SHOULD I care about their opinion?

When my wife had her accident, which almost killed her. Did "the world" care? Did they offer help? Sympathy?

When northwestern Minnesota, and parts of North Dakota flooded, and thousands were homeless. Hmmmm, I was there, lending aid and help. And I saw literally thousands of folks from all over Minnesota and the Dakotas there. Even saw some folks from other states, not involved in the flooding, show up and help.

But, yah know something? I didn't see even ONE van marked "The World, because we care." show up.

I could go on at lenght, but it'd be senseless. I think you get my meaning.

This "world" of which you speak, seems to ask a lot, and offer nothing but snarls and insults in return. I personally wouldn't care for such as a neighbor. Fortunately, my neighbor is a decent fellow. If I help him, he says thanks. And when he sees that he can help me, he does.

Tell me more about this wonderful "world" of yours. Where leaders in France, and German, and Russia take bribes to turn their backs on a man who killed ... 300,000 as of the last count I heard ... of his own people and buried them in mass graves. And where was this caring 'world' when Camodians were being slughtered in mass by the Khmer Rouge? Etc. Etc. Etc.

Why is it I always seem to see folks blame America for everything? If we take action we're blamed. If we do nothing, we are blamed.

Hmmm. Are we supposed to feel worthy to live ONLY when we obey every whim and notion of whomever feels that we should do something, bow, kiss their feet, and say "Why, thank you for demanding I slave for you and then spitting in my face when I'm done."?

Tell me about this, Abrasha, I'd really like to hear your answer.

I'd like to know when I get to come to you and demand you do something whether you want to do it or not, whether you and yours bleeds or not. And then be able to act like this 'world' of which you speak. And that is once you are done doing the sweat, the labor, the bleeding, and have paid dearly out of your very own pocket, I want to be able to express righteoous indignation that you did not do even more, and then spit in your face as my "Thank You" to you.

After all, that is what YOU, the world, have been doing to us. Or at least seem to expect.

Bob

Reply to
Bob G

"World opinion" being against the US is nothing new. It's been against the US ever since the American Revolution because we dumped the King. We "set a bad example", and there's been several revolutions blamed on our example.

Anyone in the US concerned about "World Opinion" can kiss my ass. We are as wealthy and free as we are IN SPITE OF 'world opinion'.

Reply to
Offbreed

Reply to
John Husvar

Amen!

But, Bob, _WE_ are the rich folks that're supposed to give everything to those who haven't tried to earn their own. Have you no compassion? If US gives a million, it should've been 10 million: If US gives 10 million, why wasn't it a billion? Huh? Huh?

Do anything, it's not enough: Do nothing, it's just like those ugly, filthy, trailer-trash, Merkins to let "the world" starve, suffer, and bleed. Do something right and we're uppity: Nake a mistake and we're uncaring.

Maybe isolationism wasn't such a bad idea after all.

Reply to
John Husvar

He certainly acted as though he did. The US has inspected a small percentage of the ammo dumps, who knows what they will find?

formatting link
THE PARTISAN CONTROVERSY over the outing of Valerie Plame, the once-covert CIA analyst and wife of Ambassador Joseph Wilson IV, seems destined to go unresolved. Although the actions of two senior administration officials may be felonious, a city that lives on leaked information seems unlikely to produce the identity of either official involved in the leak. However, the real story in this affair is the media?s overblown coverage and the Left?s hypocritical outrage.

The media regularly presents the two ?senior administration officials? who exposed Plame?s CIA employment to Robert Novak in July as felons. However, as Jack Shafer has pointed out on Slate, it?s not clear any law has been broken. Under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, the person disclosing the covert agent?s identity must have ?authorized access to classified information that identifies a covert agent? and must ?intentionally? disclose it. Whether this official had authorized or unauthorized knowledge of Ms. Plame?s status is not clear. If the official?s knowledge was ?unauthorized,? he/she apparently could not be prosecuted.

To complicate matters, Plame may not fall under the technical legal definition of a ?covert? officer.

Allegations have since surfaced that the same, nameless ?senior administration officials? had tried to plant Plame?s name and occupation with a half-dozen other reporters without success, before unloading the story on Novak. Novak denies the charge. Perhaps more tellingly, since this story surfaced ? citing a third nameless ?senior administration official? as its source ? no reporter has come forward to corroborate this charge. Does it seem plausible that the average glory-seeking, leftist reporter approached by top White House brass would remain silent, refusing to 1) accept the attendant publicity that would go with making a breakthrough story; and 2) indict the Bush Administration as a gang of liars? Much less that six reporters would remain silent for nearly four months? The thought strains credulity.

The Plame controversy actually had its genesis with the ?16 words controversy.? In early 2002, Vice President Dick Cheney had heard questions raised about reports that Saddam Hussein had tried to purchase yellowcake uranium in Niger. He asked the CIA to look into the matter, and the Agency dispatched former Ambassador Joe Wilson to look into matters. Wilson carried out his tough interrogation over ?eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people? ? at poolside, on occasion ? before inexplicably finding nothing. In July, the story broke that a fact-finding investigation on Niger?s yellowcake had been undertaken and concluded that Saddam never tried to purchase uranium there. Wilson promptly confessed he was the diplomat who undertook this ?investigation.? Thus was President Bush?s State of the Union Address derided as ?lies? by the Left ? on the basis of Wilson?s African vacation!

Wilson was an odd choice, indeed. He has keynoted before the Education for Peace in Iraq Center (EPIC), which opposed the Iraqi liberation, the sanctions against Saddam and even the no-fly zones protecting Saddam?s former victims. Wilson is also an ?adjunct fellow? at the Saudi-funded Middle East Institute. His flaming leftist shilling has graced the pages of Nation, where he wrote, ?The new imperialists will not rest until governments that ape our worldview are implanted throughout the region.? Finally, he gave the maximum campaign contribution allowed by law to Al Gore?s 2000 Presidential campaign. (Plame gave $1,000 herself.) Indeed, Wilson worked for Gore in the

1980s. In recent years, he has supported (and formally endorsed) Sen. John Kerry.

Bob Novak asked the predictable question: Why was Wilson, a career diplomat with no CIA background, no investigative experience and a political axe to grind against George W. Bush, sent on such a sensitive mission? (Perhaps Novak should have also asked why authorities accepted Wilson?s incompetent trip as the final word, particularly when British intelligence still claims the story is accurate.)

Are they now? Why did they send Wilson, a political hack, to Nigeria?

That's part of the risk. Getting wasted by the politicians.

You finally got something right.

The Moslems and other third worlders get their main impression of the US from CNN and the sleazy films out of Hollywood.

Reply to
Offbreed

Gunner:

Thanks you made my point for me.

You should look up the mean>

intelligent

Reply to
Jimbo

Well said Bob, we are the most carring and compassionate nation that has ever existed on the planet, I appreciate your comments and agree in whole.

JTMcC.

Reply to
JTMcC

SNIP

SNIP

Hell, even Saddam thought he had more WMD's than he did. His scientists were so terrified of failing to deliver the weapons he demanded that they told him they had developed them.

They fled the country when it was obvious Saddam would discover the lies. I don't recall the title but one of his top nuclear boys wrote a book about the scam.

Reply to
andy asberry

As little as I know about politics and world affairs, I can't help but agree! I'm damned tired of seeing our country being the heavy.

Harold

Reply to
Harold & Susan Vordos

That is an easy answer, it does not matter. We should not have invaded even if he had WMD's. Why is it OK for our friends to have WMD's even when our friends are just as bad as our enemies. I am speaking of Israel here.

We should not have invaded even if we were sure. We should not have invaded even if he did have them. It virtually guarantees that every country than might be in our "invade next" list will develop WMD's of their own. Why was Iraq invaded and North Korea not invaded. One has WMD's and the other did not. Those countries on our bad list will be able to figure that out. Even one nuke is a guarantee against invasion. What country would not go for that.

Another thing that this mess has taught all those bad countries is how to hide their programs. They know what works and what does not.

There you have it, you will have to figure it out for your self.

Pete.

Reply to
Peter Reilley

Yes it is. If you send soldiers to fight a war, some of them will get killed. If you bring them home, no more will be.

This is what my grandmother used to call "if you don't want to get hit by a train, don't play on the RR tracks."

True then, true now.

Jim

================================================== please reply to: JRR(zero) at yktvmv (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com ==================================================

Reply to
jim rozen

On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 09:15:20 -0500, "Peter Reilley" wrote:

Well, to start with, I am not a lawyer. The fellow to whom I was replying is.

I do have more than the average person's understanding of the law, tho I am far from a lawyer. Simply because events in life lead me to studying _some_ law. At one time, I thought I might want to be a cop. I'm Navy, but the Navy had sent me thru the Air Force's law enforcement academy. As part of my duties in the Navy involved law enforcement and security. So I got out of the service at one point and went through a police academy in a major city. And was a cop for just short of 3 years. I wasn't cut out to be a cop. Acknowledged that fact to myself, and went back into the Navy.

Later, starting while still in the Navy, and continuing for a while after I got out, I took other college level law courses. In international law, business law, and property law. Had a realtors license, and at one time even considered going back to school and becoming a business/property lawyer. As an engineer, working for a major corp with part of my duties involving negotiating and making contracts for services we hired, property we owned and others we leased or rented (I did get legal assistance from one of our corporate lawyers when I needed it) I got interested in contract law and the like. But in the end decided to not attempt the switch. While I found it interresting, and handy to know, it was not something I wished to do full time. Basically, at heart, I'm a tools and gadgets and technology guy who is happiest when designing something, making something, or fixing something. Such, I can get passionate about, and really enjoy.

Anyway, I've also had the opportunity to sit in court more than a few times. As a witness, an accuser, a defendent, and 3 times so far, as a juror. I say so far as I just got notice a couple weeks ago I'm being put on the "prospective juror" list, again. This time should be different tho, if I'm actually called. I'm going into the pool for a federal court.

Incorrect, happens all the time. Incorrect only in the first part. Not in the last part. You are correct about the "just because you don't like him". Generally speaking, and there are exceptions, neither judges nor juries are gonna look at your case favorably if they believe you've prosecuting someone simply due to personal dislike. You can lose a case fast that way. Sometimes, even if the guy is guilty. Juries just DON'T LIKE it when a case appears to be one focused on personal dislike, hatred, etc.

In any event, we have all sorts of laws, and all sorts of situations where those laws are not enforced in one case, but enforced in another. Many reasons for this. Not all of them "conspiracies of the priviledged." More often, it's simply because when the perp is finally called upon his acts and confronted, he stops doing whatever. Many a cop on the street has settled a problem simply by confronting an offender, giving him or her a verbal dressing down and a warning, then let the person go. And the person corrected his or her behavior. End of problem. No formal charges, no court, no judge required. Works more often than you might think.

In other cases, sometimes folks simply don't report the offender, for any one of a number of reasons. They tolerate the offense.

Could be that the ones who know, are reliant on the offender for income and support. In other cases it's fear of the offender. In still other cases, the ones who know about the offense, don't agree with the law. So never report the offense. It goes on and on as concerns reasons.

Other laws are ones where violations tend to be generally ignored UNLESS the violation is of such magnitude, or so outlandish in nature, that it stands out as a situation where reasonable people would not ignore it.

i.e. Speeding in a motor vehicle. Ignored all the time everywhere. Cops see it all the time and let it go. BUT ... have the violator not only speeding, but compounding the fact by driving in a careless and dangerous fashion, and you may well have a cop ... quite rightly ... ignoring a dozen other speeders doing the same speed, and singling out the moron who's engaging in excessive lane changing, tail gating, and cutting too close in front of others.

There are many other examples.

Bullshit. Good thing you're not a lawyer. You'd be real embarassed standing in front of a jury who recognizes common sense as versus BS.

We, in the US, provide life insurance for our servicemen and women, just as my employer has a life insurance policy on me. In case I should die in the line of my work. My wife gets the money. FWIW, I'm retired active duty military. And I've got news for you. That life insurance policy for servicemembers who die in the line of duty is a PALTRY, small amount. Most of the civilians I know have larger policies than that, by far.

Second. We do not pay off just because one of our soldiers killed someone, performed a suicide attack, etc. If he or she dies on active duty, even if he or she is a clerk typist, the life insurance policy is paid. Same as with any life insurance policy held by any civilian.

Third. If we find that a member of our military has DELIBERATELY targeted innocent civilians when it could be avoided ... we don't pay on his life insurance. Trust me. We'll put him on trial and try our best to put him in prison.

Whether you agree or not is irrelevant. But long history, and international legal agreements, every since we've had such things, acknowledges that there is a difference between a soldier accidentally killing a civilian in battle ... or having no choice but to take the chances of killing some innocent civilians if the enemy is hiding behind such and NOT killing the enemy despite the chances of civilian casualties means the likelihood of even higher casualties later ... as versus deliberately targeting innocent civilians with the express purpose of targeting civilians.

That last part can be done, the deliberate targeting of civilians, only in specific circumstances. i.e. It is commonly recognized that the governing group of an enemy, who do the organizing, give direction to the soldiers, etc ... aren't, really, "innocent" civilians. Thus a military force is not tried for attacking, for instance, the equivalent of our Congress, or a governor, etc. Also, exception is normally made in the case of a necessity to attack factories making bombs or other war machinery.

The above, are FAR different than such things as targeting random buses of ordinary innocent civilians going about their daily business, setting off bombs in a school, blowing up a cafe, so on and so forth.

You've already indicated both a misunderstanding of the law, and a definite bias to your thinking.

First off, while we may well dislike and disagree with what many people in the world do. Fact is, we don't have the resources, the will, nor an interest in attacking everyone with whom we disagree.

If YOU don't like what country X is doing to their people, And ... if ... you want something done to stop it. YOU get off your ass, go there, and volunteer to fight against the oppressors. Or shut the hell up, because you're just all mouth and don't even believe what you're saying or you are a coward. Take your pick.

We, as a country, can not reform the world, alone. And have no intentions of doing so. We try to offer encouragement, a nudge in what we think is the right direction. Etc. But we don't plan now or ever to try to control the whole planet. Whatever for? The vast majority of US citizens know next to nothing about what things are really like in other countries. And frankly don't care. Not because they're evil. Simply because they have their own lives, interests, persuits, families, and so forth. And if there is something somewhere else they really want, they go check out the stores to find one where they can buy whatever it is. They don't plan invasions to get it. Why the HELL do yah want to go invade a place, when in almost every case if you offer them a reasonable amount for whatever, they'll sell it to you? Remember? We ARE supposedly rich as a nation. Relatively, I suppose that's true enough. It's true enough so that you'd have to hunt really hard, except in some newsgroup where the whackos hang out, to find an American who has ever had any thought in his or her life about wanting the US to control the world. They don't want it. They want left alone, that's what they want.

I'm 55 years old, and have literally been around the world. And have been all over the US. Wanna know something? Before we invaded Afghanistan, most Americans if asked couldn't have found Afghanistan on a map. Knew nothing about it. Didn't particularly wish to know anything about it either. Average Minnesotan I know has plenty to do to keep himself or herself busy. Got a job, or is going to school. Or both. Got a family. Got a home to take care of. Friends to visit, TV to watch. A wife or hubby to try to seduce into bed. Wanna egt em excited about something? It isn't politics or what's occuring over in some place they've never been and will likely never see, that hasn't got anything that they know about they might want. Wanna get em riled up? Have the tree huggers and PITA talk about restricting or stopping their fishing and hunting rights. That's when Minnesotans went to the polls and passed a State constitutional amendment to guarantee and protect such rights. That's something they listened up to and paid attention to. Prior to the invasion of Afghanistan, the average Minnesotan would not only have not been able to say where the place was, he or she would've not known anything about the place, much less that there were atrocious human rights violations being committed there. Or in Cambodia. Or in Africa. Etc.

Of the few who did know, every one I heard speak of it was saddened and wished it'd stop. But wasn't inclined to want to send OUR people to go die for strangers.

Now, whether you realize it or not, there was a fundamental change when those folks saw the Twin Towers come falling down.

Whereas before only a VERY few meddling busy bodies, and some VERY few well intended but possibly misguided people ever wanted us to get involved and interfere in what is really other people's business. And that's the way most Americans I know thought of these things. MOST sortta figured it was the UN's problem. And if the UN wasn't doing anything, must mean they thought no one else ought to interfere.

However, with the fall of those Twin Towers, things changed. One of the things that changed was folks started wondering ... just what the HELL is the UN doing? The answer was fairly obvious.

Talking, lining their pockets, talking, lining their pockets, talking lining their pockets, and talking and lining their pockets.

If you don't know, most US people aren't exactly what you'd call real patient.

Before, if they even thought about it, just assumed the UN was actually some sort of effective organization, with real rules that were enforced. Probably a bunch of lying politicians like all other lying politicians, almost certainly skimming more money off the top than they were passing on the countries they bragged they helped. But what else do yah expect of professional politicians, diplomats, statesmen, and lawyers? That's normal.

But when Americans saw Americans dying like that, and not even soldiers ... who voluntarily accept their risks and duties ... they weren't in a patient mood any more.

Bush, whether or not he may or may not have been inclined to dislike Saddam personally, does have a duty to the country.

Fact was, if he'd not taken some sort of definite, REAL action ... the vast majority of the American public would have been inclined to fry him. And if anyone else other than Bush had been in office, the public would have felt just the same. Any President would have felt very real pressure to take action.

Not UN action. REAL action. Make something happen to change things.

Congress felt the same pressure. Or are you one of those suckers who believe the political rhetoric and outright lies told by several of them now, that elections are coming up? Originally, Congress passed the resolutions to allow Bush to take the upper hand and do what he felt he must. And they KNEW ... every last one of them that he might well invade. He never, not once, was reticent about that fact. He proclaimed from the first moment, that if that's what he felt he needed to do, he'd do it. End of subject.

And when Congress passed that resolution, those that voted 'for' clamored to immediately get in front of cameras and mikes and let the public know that, "Yeah, damn right ! I voted for it. We'll do what we need to do to clamp down on terrorists ... and those who aid them." Even some of those who now claim ... being the outright, bold liars they are ... that ... ummm ... well, I didn't really mean what I said before. I thought we were just talking. I didn't think we'd really do something like we did.

Those guys are either utter LIARS, or utter IDIOTS ... and in either case will never get a vote from me.

So Bush did the UN thing trying to gain their cooperation. They did nothing. As usual. It's what they do best. That, and running if anything gets too tough or dangerous. We as a country only have a few friends and allies with the fortitude, conviction, and courage to stand fast with us when things get tough ... and it isn't the UN. Hell, the UN won't even go in to deliver medical supplies and food if they think it's too dangerous. Wanna know who does do such things in such circumstances? Tends to be the very same folk who stand by us in war.

If you haven't figured it out yet, I've no use for the UN. Not only are they useless, thieves, and liars. You'd have to hunt far and wide to find so many personal cowards in one place. I'm talking about the heads of the UN. Not the earnest field worker trying to help people.

Anyway Bush tried, the UN lied and said they'd try to do something that'd work. Even while key members had no such intention since they were on Saddam's paroll. People like good old Jacques, Shroeder, and the Ruskie. Who claimed "good intentions" when in reality they were accepting the pay-off to turn a blind eye to what Saddam was doing and to interfere with us getting what we wanted, which was UN _action_, not more talk.

So for how long did Bush try to do the UN thing? A year? And got nothing.

Okay, there is NOT any real legal restriction against our taking action ourselves if we feel it's a case of self protection. That's already established. I'd said that on this newsgroup months ago. Folks told me I was full of it. Just a few days ago Koki, the head of the UN if you don't know, was on TV and he admitted the same thing I'd said. UN rules allow any member nation to do what they feel they must in self defense. UN rules are also "voluntary compliance" agreements. Not LAW as we know that term in the U.S.

Now I'm no lover of Koki. I've criticized him before. He's ineffective as a leader who can get things done. But, he's not stupid or anything. Probably a very bright, well educated fellow. He damn well knows that there is NO SUCH THING AS LAW UNLESS YOU HAVE THE FORCE WITH WHICH TO ENFORCE IT.

It's impossible. A law is not a law unless someone has the force to exert, and the will to use it, to enforce the law. This was true 5000 years ago. It's still true. And will never change. It can't. Not possible. Just because yah write something on a piece of paper, that does not in and of itself make sure one and all actually follows whatever rule you just wrote down. Some will. The folks who agree with you. The rest are gonna tell yah to stick it up your ass and go and do what they wanna do regardless of what you think of it. And you can yell "But you're violating the law !" until you're blue in the face, or until one of those you're yelling at turns around and smacks you upside the head to shut you up ... but just saying the words, just writing down on paper ... doesn't make it law. ONLY ... the ability and willingness to enforce the law, by physical force if necessary, makes something law.

Without the willingness and ability to use force to enforce the rule, it not law.

In any event, I'm not sure I'd have done things the same way Bush did. Take out Saddam or try to? Yep, you betcha. But I think I'd have first done some air strikes that'd have been the mother of all air strikes. I'd have been inclined to do something besides direct invasion first. Such as target and blow the holy crap out of everything that even looked like an Iraqi soldier, tank, missle launcher, barracks, base, the friggin officers' clubs, sank every military ship or canoe. Then I'd have concentrated EVERY palace he owned and would have reduced it to dust.

THEN, I'd have placed a phone call to the fellow or one of his representatives and I'd have asked, "Want to talk with us real reasonable now? Do we get to send in people and see if you're lying to us or not about the WMDs and the terrorist training camps, etc? Or do we have to get serious here and really start trying to hurt you?"

Chuckle, probably good reason I'll never be a commander in chief or a general or admiral. The above was my first inclination. But even as I typed it I realized it would not have worked. Saddam and many of those who supported him the most, probable aren't even sane. They were living in a friggin La-La land of fantasy, Witness the fact his own folks didn't think he was sane any more and hid things from him, routinely told him what he wanted to hear rather than reality, and so forth. Undoubtedly Saddam would have challenged us to come on in, just like he did to the very end, thinking his Army was gonna stand up and die for a friggin crazy man. Most of em had sense enough to know he was perfectly willing for THEM to die, so he could be a more glorious figure in history. Most of them had it figured out that he didn't give a rip about them or their familes. The only thing Saddam really cared about was ... Saddam. Hell, he once expressed the opinion that he thought it was perfectly acceptable for 20 million of his folks to die, if needed, to bolster his power, image, and prominence in the world.

Wrong.

By your reasoning, if the cops come across 5 guys who just murdered a bunch of folks, but only have the manpower and resources at hand to catch one, for now. That since the others are gonna get away with it, they should let the one they got go, so he can go kill some more.

Am I safe to assume that under your reasoning, that since somebody in the Congo is now killing someone else. And we're not tracking him down. Then if someone else comes to your home and kills your loved ones ... we should let him go?

We have not the power, nor the resources, nor the inclination to police the world, sir. For that matter, it's not even our responsibility. And if we tried, same folks would curse as for doing so as those who curse us for not doing so,

So our only alternative. Is to ignore those who hate us, as they'll hate us no matter what we do. Hate is hate. It is not logical nor reasonable.

In the case of Saddam, for a whole host of reasons, we as a country, and it's WE ... not Bush ... remember that all those Congressmen gave him their support, at first until they figured out the could make political gain by reversing themselves and trying to backstab him ... we as a country decided he did pose a danger to US. We decided that as he was so willing to kill off his own folks in horrid fashion. And since it was known that he'd take war to other countries any time he felt he could get away with it. (remember Kuwaitt?) Since he was KNOWN to have possessed .... and MORE importantly .... he was known to USE WMDs. And since we had some evidence, evidence so good that even the UN and Clinton believed it, that he might have more but was hiding it. And since he'd not allow unrestricted searches to take place to verify whether he did or did not have em. Since we knew he publically called, many times, for folks to kill the evil US people. Since we knew he supported some terrorists, thus it was not unlikely he might support others, and we had intelligence info saying that in fact he did, or at least key officials in his government did. And since we knew from past experience, it's all history if you read it, that Saddam would attack others quickly, violently, and without mercy any time he felt like he might get away with it. We warned, "Do this, to show us your good intentions and that you mean us no harm.", and when he refused, we ACTED.

Now, you might disagree with this. That's your right ... to disagree. Simply disagreement doesn't mean you are in fact correct. Many of us think you are not.

As it turns out, some of our intelligence was faulty. Some of it was accurate.

It would seem that he either did not have the large stock piles of WMDs, or managed to get them shipped off elsewhere. So what? We NOW know he's not got them. And know that he was trying to keep an active WMD development program in action. Hiding a lab here, a lab there, small samples of this and that here and there. His own scientists say that he was still trying to develop the knowledge to make the stuff ... for later. Why did we worry about Saddam's WMDs more than someone else's? Who else has a recent history of being so friggin willing to use em that he tested a batch out on a whole town of folks in his own country? Who else has them that seemed like such a crazy, wild assed, loved to do it mass murderer? Hell, even his own neighbors and fellow Muslims were scared of him.

Nope.

I don't worry about the person who have a history of being a decent, law abiding citizen who has a gun, either. Or a whole basement full of guns.

I do worry about the known murders who have guns, however.

Bob

Reply to
Bob G

This juror feels that this case is selective enforcement. You feel differently. You have expressed special disdain for the guy. I don't like Saddam either but he is in the same class as Sharon. One gets invaded and the other gets showered with money and arms. The special treatment seems more than random.

The Palestinian fighters were killed in the line of duty. Their families deserve to be supported.

As to innocent Israelis; when Israeli children are killed it is a tragedy and I condemn such attacks. Israeli adults are not innocent. Israel is a democracy for them. They cannot claim innocence of their government's crimes. They vote for the same criminals time and time again. There is not a single Israeli political party, left or right, that advocates giving the Palestinians their rights. It is truly a broken system, it must be reformed or replaced. Apartheid South Africa found peace by way of equal rights and Israel can too.

How do you overthrow such a system? I cannot think of any other way given the resources that the Palestinians have and the nature of the enemy that they face.

After 9/11 the US went into a blind rage and invaded Afghanistan. First to get Al Quaida because they were the people responsible for 9/11. We had no fight with the Taiban as we were first told. That soon changed and the Tailbone became our target. We killed a lot of people but gained little satisfaction. The targets that we wanted, bin Laden and Omar escaped. We began looking for another target.

Saddam was a bad guy, we agree, but was he going to invade any neighbor after what happened with the first gulf war? Even if he was truly insane, was he making preparations to invade a neighbor again?

You seem to be making the case of going after anyone that might commit a crime. You take the accusation that he might have weapons as sufficient evidence that we need to act. Your line of reasoning will lead to many such preemptive strikes.

You may argue that preemptive strikes make us safer but the opposite is true. Once preemptive strikes become the normal method of diplomatic discourse we will be the worse off. The notion of preemptive strikes will be used by everyone. We will be the likely target. We can hardly complain as we legitimized that reasoning.

While we may be the last standing world power, we do not have the power to invade everyone. We do not even have the power to invade everyone in the Middle East even though that is where our government seems to be taking us.

Live and let live seems to be a better policy.

Pete.

Reply to
Peter Reilley

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.