Killing sadam

[Warin 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SirLoins @ Oct. 03 2002,05:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Did any of you "anything once again to stick it to Bush" guys READ the press conference?  Apparently not.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2....printer

Also the "war to cover up the economy" argument is lame.  But you guys can't come up with anything else.  Status Quo.

Plus, I thought all of you anti-capitalist, socialist left wingers would be in 7th heaven with the US economy.  We have and will always have the strongest economy in the world.  It will just take a while to fix Clinton's cooked books.  (please Ralph, no more lectures.  You believe what you want, and I'll believe the truth)

It's getting really old, but once again I will defend my President.  

If we wait for a smoking gun, we will have waited too long.

DOR, stick to your "guns" (pun intended).<span id='postcolor'>

Is or is not the US economy in the crapper?

It looks pretty shitty to me, no matter who put it there.

Many people have accused Clinton of making token attacks on foreign nations to 'distract' people from domestic affairs. And you are saying that there isnt any way that Bush would resort to the same tactic? I'd say that is either blind faith, or just plain silliness. Of course Bush would do whatever he can to take peoples attention of the dwindling value of their 401K's.

I dont hate Bush. I think he is a man of moderate intelligence doing his best in a job that generally requires more than what he has. I just find his manufacturing a conflict to be something of an obscene way of running a country.

There is no smoking gun because it seems that they are inventing things as they go along... And the sad fact is that the Bush administration cant even come up with a rational enough argument to have Mr Rubber Spine Chretien get onside with the Great Iraq Attack. And if you cant talk Jean into it, then your evidence cant be very persuasive!

[Col. Kurtz 0]

If Bush wants Bush really wants Suddam Hussien dead, he should be willing to do it himself. If you want a good job done, you do it yourself. I think that calls for a duel between Mr. Bush and Mr. Hussien. If Bush really wanted to get Hussien out of the way for the good of the world, he would be willing to sacrafice his life for the cause, not the blood of his soldiers.

Wether it is immoral or not, I believe Bush did sign the piece of paper saying that he will never order the assissnation of a Leader of another country. To do so would be a very dishonourable act.

[Nagual 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Col. Kurtz @ Oct. 03 2002,14:17)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">If Bush wants Bush really wants Suddam Hussien dead, he should be willing to do it himself. If you want a good job done, you do it yourself. I think that calls for a duel between Mr. Bush and Mr. Hussien. If Bush really wanted to get Hussien out of the way for the good of the world, he would be willing to sacrafice his life for the cause, not the blood of his soldiers.<span id='postcolor'>

lol,

why not just get them both on the jerry springer show...

[IceFire 0]

Tex, Well, I don't think we have any reason to attack Iraq, but why do you keep using the "morality" argument?

I don't think morals have anything to do with a war.

How can you claim that we are the good guys and should play by the rules and all that with enemies??

We are no more good or honest than alot of other countries.  In fact we have done alot of evil things in our past.   We can't just look at the flag waving and listen to partiotic and keep on thinking we are the good guys of the world no matter how much we think we are.

That is just one reason why I don't think you can apply morals in military combat.  I mean also, it is just two sides doing whatever it takes to win.

Even if it means getting down and dirty and doing things that are not so "fair" in order to win.  There is no right or wrong to it, (as long as you are dealing with the enemy and enemy soldiers that is)

I don't think that anything to get the advantage over the enemy can be called "unfair" as "fairness" doesn't exist in war, or national defence.  

Havn't you heard "All's fair in love and war"?

I say if we are going to take Saddam out, I see no reason why we shouln't sneak into the country and assasinate him, all covert like.   That woulnt lessen us to anyone's levels.   We would just be doing whatever it takes to take out the enemy and get the job done.

I dunno, I am just very sleepy, but that train of thought just seems very arrogant, naive, and unrealistic to me.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IceFire @ Oct. 03 2002,06:30)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Tex, Well, I don't think we have any reason to attack Iraq, but why do you keep using the "morality" argument?

I don't think morals have anything to do with a war.

How can you claim that we are the good guys and should play by the rules and all that with enemies??

We are no more good or honest than alot of other countries.  In fact we have done alot of evil things in our past.   We can't just look at the flag waving and listen to partiotic and keep on thinking we are the good guys of the world no matter how much we think we are.

That is just one reason why I don't think you can apply morals in military combat.  I mean also, it is just two sides doing whatever it takes to win.

Even if it means getting down and dirty and doing things that are not so "fair" in order to win.  There is no right or wrong to it, (as long as you are dealing with the enemy and enemy soldiers that is)

I don't think that anything to get the advantage over the enemy can be called "unfair" as "fairness" doesn't exist in war, or national defence.  

Havn't you heard "All's fair in love and war"?

I say if we are going to take Saddam out, I see no reason why we shouln't sneak into the country and assasinate him, all covert like.   That woulnt lessen us to anyone's levels.   We would just be doing whatever it takes to take out the enemy and get the job done.

I dunno, I am just very sleepy, but that train of thought just seems very arrogant, naive, and unrealistic to me.<span id='postcolor'>

You bring up some very good points, but the reason I am using this morality tack is not necessarily because I think America is pure as the driven snow, but more because we should strive to be that way.

Morality is a fairly relative concept anyhow, but using the Judeo-Christian model, you can get a fair idea of what I am talking about.

Let me put it this way: America as a whole considers itself to be on the side of 'good', and that being 'good' entails fighting things that we deem 'evil'. However, if we use tactics that normally in our society are considered to be 'evil' in our fight against 'evil', are we still 'good'? This is the question I am putting forth in the form of my argument.

I am well acquainted with the axiom "All's fair in love and war", but bear in mind that it is just a saying, and a rather outdated one at that. I would also like to point out that assassination falls neither in the realms of love or war, so your argument is irrelevant anyhow.

I am puzzled that you consider my arguments arrogant, because I was taught that striving for morality is not arrogant- rather, I was taught that assuming you have the moral high ground just because you say so is arrogant. I am not saying that America is automatically right, or just, but instead I am arguing that we should strive to be moral and just, ESPECIALLY when we are fighting with a force that we deem to be 'evil'

[ralphwiggum 6]

if "all" is fair in war, then bin Laden's action is fair. why? he declared jihad(islamic war), thus he is engaged in war with US, so any tactics would work. see my point? saying "All is fair" in war is not a good argument.

US boasts itself as the moral center, then it should act accordingly. I never saw ant conclusive evidence about Iraq's WMD capability being used at this moment.

If anything taught world about US's wrath after 9-11, is that Us will go after them at all costs should someone attack it. upon seeing that, do you think Hussein has balls to do it? Hussein's sole purpose of his life is to remain in power. and he knows that if he pisses US off, he will lose it. so all he does is say dumb things through Aziz.

and DOR, think about it. even with a Barret, and assume Hussein is standing still, shooting him would require sniper to be within a mile. that's pretty hard to do in baghdad.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Plus, I thought all of you anti-capitalist, socialist left wingers would be in 7th heaven with the US economy. We have and will always have the strongest economy in the world. It will just take a while to fix Clinton's cooked books. (please Ralph, no more lectures. You believe what you want, and I'll believe the truth)<span id='postcolor'>

excuse me? I'm a graduate student in economics here? you think you are more capitalist then i am? US did not have strongest economy in the world prior to WW2, and there's is no guarantee that it will. the current prosperity is result of low-labor inputs(that republicans abhor, but benefit from) and forreign trade. thanx to cheap labors in China, we have some cheap products. So should that fall down and US turn to closed economy, there goes the All-Mighty-US.

and Clinton did not fix books, that's what you think it is. instead of listening to some dazed conservative politicians, goto federal reserves board's website and look at some data. that's what i do and I believe in empirical evidence, not what i think is true. sure you don't want my free lecture?

[ralphwiggum 6]

and for Jester.

Saddam's first son, Udai, has reputations for being a psycho. if i remember corerctly, there was an assasination attempt a few yrs ago that left him paralyzed

[IceFire 0]

Yeah, when I was saying "arrogant", I was talking about thinking to be "morally superiour".

Yeah, as for "All's fair in love and war and NATIONAL DEFENCE". Yeah, it's an old saying.

But the idea still applies.

It just means that sometimes you gotta do ruthless stuff when dealing with the "enemy". It may not be "fair", or anything, and it may make you even feel sick to do it. But sometimes you gotta do ruthless stuff that are not conventional in order to gain the advantage.

Spec ops is a very general example of that. So is the sniper. and alot of other things that we have in modern warfare and national defence. Things that we the public know about, and stuff we are probably not aware of too.

Basically, yeah we got rules and all. But sometimes, well, ... you understand the basic idea of what I'm trying to say.

And I am very sleepy right now so I am not that articulate right now.

[ralphwiggum 6]

alright good night Icefire.

when i say "all is fair in war", that's during war, not even before it starts.

[IceFire 0]

Hey Ralf wiffum.

The reason my argumant still stands agains it when you talk about Binladen is cause he attacked/killed civvies.

And noticed, I always was talking about when taking out the "enemy". THose civilians in NY were not military or anything, just civvies.

That is why he is just a bastart. THe only thing he did that was out of line was attacking civvies/killing civvies. ALso, he is our enemy. ANd a real bastard ofcourse, I don't needto mention.

You can look at my above posts and notice that I was strickly talking about the "enemy" and not civvielisans or non-combatants/ people not involved.

Sorry, but I had to defend my piont.

Please, I am going to sleep, before I start to fuck up my typing more.

[IceFire 0]

Oh, amd goodnight.

[second_draw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Warin @ Oct. 03 2002,05:07)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Saddam is a tinhorn dictator.  He's not a pleasant man, and maintains his control on Iraq with what are likely brutal and immoral methods.

So?

I've noticed that the US has a habit of labelling dictators in two ways:

1) Evil nasty bad guy who needs to be 'taken out'

2) A good friend to the US, a stalwart ally in our 'War on Terrorism'

It's all perspective.  Dictators are OK as long as they are 'OUR' dictator bad guy.   Before the US starts casting stones and making all sorts of self righteous comments, they need to look at their past glass houses.

There are a lot of nations with the capability to produce NBC weapons.  But Saddam is being singled out because Bush needs a scapegoat to take the attention of the American public off of a horrid economy (One day this week was the worst day on the NYSE since the Great Depression).  As I see it, it's also a desire to be something of a Hero in the US created 'War on Terrorism'

It is very amusing that the US thinks it's possible to declare war on a noun.  Terrorism isnt something you can declare war on.  It's something you can fight and strive to eradicate.  And after Sept 11, 2001 I cant blame the US for wanting to do just that.  The problem comes in when diplomats and bureaucrats (Rumsfeld and Powell are not elected...) start deciding to decare war on sovereign nations in the name of a concept.<span id='postcolor'>

As i said before. The us economy thrives on war.

On the subject of declaring war on a noun. I see visually like a comon crime. Imagine a crack down on loitering. Do the police jail all teenagers and rape their girlfriends, i think not. I know this is an overly simplistic scenario, but and idea to sort of comprehend the situation.

[second_draw 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (SirLoins @ Oct. 03 2002,05:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Also the "war to cover up the economy" argument is lame.  But you guys can't come up with anything else.  Status Quo.<span id='postcolor'>

i never meant anything like this. We may have been stupid enough fall for all the proganda thrown at us so far. But we are not all blind. The war doen't need to cover up the economy nor intended to.

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IceFire @ Oct. 03 2002,07:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hey Ralf wiffum.

The reason my argumant still stands agains it when you talk about Binladen is cause he attacked/killed civvies.

And noticed, I always was talking about when taking out the "enemy".          THose civilians in NY were not military or anything, just civvies.

That is why he is just a bastart.  THe only thing he did that was out of line was attacking civvies/killing civvies.  ALso, he is our enemy.  ANd a real bastard ofcourse, I don't needto mention.

You can look at my above posts and notice that I was strickly talking about the "enemy" and not civvielisans or non-combatants/ people not involved.

Sorry, but I had to defend my piont.

Please, I am going to sleep, before I start to fuck up my typing more.<span id='postcolor'>

hhmm..Fluffy bunny by Wiggum..so i see my last name is now WiFFum

and i'd like to bring out the fact that even though we do not consider civilians enemy, bin Laden did. and within that perspective(that US is killling civilian Arabs) it works.(which by the way is really more of propaganda)

my problem with "All is fair in war" is that it needs to define who enemy is. Civilians are certainly not(in theory). But does Iraq do things that threaten US? no. we have no conclusive evidence.

[Major Fubar 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (cybrid @ Oct. 03 2002,05:08)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think that your all just jelous of the most powerful country on the face of the planet. The United States of America is the modern day roman empire, just like that one guy said....you know the one I mean....british dude, was in a band or somthing. Anyhow, i don't have a problem with a powerful country telling other people what do, so as long as the U.S. dosen't start a nuclear/bio/chem war, I could really car less. And how is it in any way illmorale to shoot and evil ruthless dictator?<span id='postcolor'>

So basically you are saying you support facism...might makes right? The strong should control the weak...

400,000 years of human evolution, and basically we still believe the biggest guy with the biggest club should be telling everyone else what to do and how to live.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (cybrid @ Oct. 03 2002,05:31)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Apparently Saddam was funding the taliban for the attacks and what not (as to my understanding). I really don't understand the situation 100% but if Saddam was giving the funding, whats stopping him from launching a direct attack on the us? especially if he has wepons of mass destruction?<span id='postcolor'>

Despite some very serious efforts to find somethere have been no links between Saddam and the 11/9 attacks. This has been pointed out several times even by the US government and they are still trying to find some, but without any luck.

As for assassinating your Saddam there are some thing (besides moral) that are to be considered:

[*] It would be illegal according to US law. The 1973 executive order from Gerald Ford forbids US agencies to be involved in assasinations domestic or foregin. This executive order came because the CIA had become too trigger happy without considering the consequences of their actions.

[*] It would be destabilizing for the mid-east. A removal of Saddam must be a complete replacement of him and his government. Anything else creates a volatile situation where it is possible that a civil war could break out over a power struggle. Also Iran might be tempted to do something bad if they got the chance.

What people advocating such simplistic solutions as assassinations must understand the long term consequences of such actions. It's not just "kill Saddam and everything will be good" - you have thousands of different consequences which may or may not come back and bite you in the ass.

In the 1950s there was a expression coined by the CIA - "blowback" to refer to unintended consequences of covert operations that come back to haunt the United States. When the term was first used, it referred to the consequences of the CIA's assassination of the then Iranian Prime Minister, Muhammad Mussadegh. The result of this self-serving interference in the affairs of Iran was to bring the Shah to power and 25 years of repression and tyranny, leading finally to the holding of the entire US Embassy in Tehran hostage for over a year and the revolution of the Ayatollah Khomeini. This polarization was in turn one of the factor behind the 11/9 attacks.

[foxer 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Major Fubar @ Oct. 03 2002,08:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">8--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (cybrid @ Oct. 03 2002,058)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think that your all just jelous of the most powerful country on the face of the planet. The United States of America is the modern day roman empire, just like that one guy said....you know the one I mean....british dude, was in a band or somthing. Anyhow, i don't have a problem with a powerful country telling other people what do, so as long as the U.S. dosen't start a nuclear/bio/chem war, I could really car less. And how is it in any way illmorale to shoot and evil ruthless dictator?<span id='postcolor'>

So basically you are saying you support facism...might makes right? The strong should control the weak...

400,000 years of human evolution, and basically we still believe the biggest guy with the biggest club should be telling everyone else what to do and how to live.  <span id='postcolor'>

I think he's trying say is,It's better the U.S. controls the world then china.Plus it's all about power,and will always be about power until we find other planets.

[Balschoiw 0]

There is no need that any single single government in the world controls all other nations and tells if they are good or evil. There is simply no right for it on the world.

I miss the legal point in this discussion a lot . Don´t we have an international court that deals with persons like Milossevic ? Why isnt Saddam accused there ? Why do US want to see him dead ? Are the reasons related to Irak´s relations to CIA during and after war against Iran ? Don´t forget that US supported Irak and basically gave them the opportunity to build NBC weapons.

There are always money interests behind a war. The Afghanistan war for example was planned before 9.11. Why ?

CNN asked Richard Butler, employee of the Rockefeller institute

former UN Weapons inspector about the motivations of US in Afghanistan. This is what he said:

" There we have oil, that´s a fundamental thing. We should not let this get out of our focus. The US people represent 5 percent of the world population und consume 40 percent of the world´s oil reserves. Therefore oil is an important thing...

and the biggest ol reserves are in Central Asia. The best way to get this oil to the sea is a pipeline through Afghanistan. That´s the facts and I believe not all facts are made public. There have been meetings (with Taliban ) but this is officially denied. "

Hamid Karzai (leader of the afhanistan interim government) took part in the negotians with Taliban about that pipeline. He was paid by by the US company Unocal and the new US represent for afghanistan affairs, Zalmay Khalilzad who arrived in January in Kabul, has been listed on the payroll of Unocal many years. Unocol is a multinational Oil company located in Houston. Khalilzad, american citizen born in Kabul, served Bush sr. in the defence ministry and took part in Taliban - pipeline negotiations in the midst 90´s. In 1997 when violations of human rights in afghanistan were made public

he wrote in the Washington Post:

" The taliban produce no Anit - US - Fundamentalism like Iran does. We should be willing to appreciate this and offer humanitarian aid and internationally aid the economic growth in Afghanistan. It is time for the US to invest into the economic welth of Afghanistan. "

In january now, during his first press conference he claimed the taliban as financiers of international terrorism und said that US government would not rest till all Al Quaida ressources and personal are eliminated.

Anyone that tells that there is no relation between the Unocal pipeline project and the military US intervention must be blind.

After the attacks on the USS Cole and the US camp in Khobar the Taliban offered US to imprison Bin Laden and hand him over to them. This offer was not taken by US officials as the Taliban demanded more money from the Unocal pipeline profits.

Ok back to topic. Saddam Hussein is a bad guy. That´s for sure. But he has not attacked anyone lately. Every day 300 children die in Irak of starvation due to UN resolutions and embargos. The "food for oil" program only lets benefit the western nations. If you lived in that country (dictator, starvation, hunger) you wouldnt be very active in political opposition, would you ?

But I still cant see the threat. Where is it ? Or are interest hidden like there were in Afghanistan ? I think this is the reason why we all are told of the "Axis of Evil". Shortly after 9.11 US declared 60 nations that are dangerous to US freedom and Bush said: "We will wipe them all away. One after the other." Is this okay ? I mean there is still no prove and that is fact. I wonder why there is not more opposition to Mr Bush within the States at the moment. He justifies everything with his "War on terrorism" and anyone who opposes that is said: "You tactics strengthens terrorism - you undergo national unity and weaken US interests."

I mean US changed a lot since 9.11:

- The Patriot Bill

- 68 000 files from Reagan and Bush sr administration that should have made public after the 12 year rule are hidden again . Why ? On the 1st of November Bush jr decided to change the law to hide the papers for undefined time. "National security" was the reason he claimed. Funny that he also locked away the papers about his Gouvenor time in texas. He simply put them into the "presidential library" Why ? This is what John Dean, former employee of the White House tells about that:

" This law shows that president Bush does not want the US public to know what he does. He also doesnt want to bother about any historians or media representatives to find out one day...If president Bush continues to keep up security and privacy policy like Nixon did, i guess, the public will deliver him a Nixon - comparable election result in 2004. Keeping information hidden is necessary to start wars but not to lead a country. I can assure you that a president the acts in secret regions has not the welth of his nation in mind, but his own personal interests to do so."

So...

What do think now ?

[Duke_of_Ray 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote (Duke_of_Ray @ Oct. 03 2002,04:20)

How many time must I say this? What is the differance between killing him with a bullet instead of a bomb? When you have a guy as evil as Sadam the only thing to do is get rid of him.

ASSASSINATION IS NOT THE WAY TO DO IT.

For fuck's sake if you are going to start a controversial topic at least have the decency to actually argue your points, instead of repeating the same shit over and over again.

<span id='postcolor'>

Awnser my question, what is the differance between a bullet and bomb? Why is it so terrible to kill him with one bullet? Its cheaper, safer, and faster. As for or law against assanation, it should be thrown away.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Duke_of_Ray @ Oct. 03 2002,14:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Awnser my question, what is the differance between a bullet and bomb? Why is it so terrible to kill him with one bullet? Its cheaper, safer, and faster. As for or law against assanation, it should be thrown away.<span id='postcolor'>

Read my previous post. Because killing just Saddam isn't enough, anything else then removing his government and replacing it with a new one will destabilize the region.

The law against assassinations was introduced for a very good reason. I am not surprised that you can't understand the issues Duke, but the problem here is that Bush doesn't see it either. He is digging a large hole in which the US is bound to fall in if he doesn't get to his senses. The kind of short term thinking that the Bush administration has shown is taking the US on a dangerous path, where the final consequences will make 11/9 look like kids play.

[JAP 2]

My two cents

Bush = A warhungry man !

The world would be a better place without him !

And i think that s the opinion of al big part of europe.

This morning i even heard on the radio, some politician in US said that going to war was gonna be good for economy !

I mean, they will just take ANY reason to cranck up their military budget and goto war.

From the first moment Bush was in the president's seat the problems began ( starwars project ! )

I m having the same feelings about another "new" leader but i will keep that for myself hehe... no need in starting hell here.

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Duke_of_Ray @ Oct. 03 2002,14:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote (Duke_of_Ray @ Oct. 03 2002,04:20)

How many time must I say this? What is the differance between killing him with a bullet instead of a bomb? When you have a guy as evil as Sadam the only thing to do is get rid of him.

ASSASSINATION IS NOT THE WAY TO DO IT.

For fuck's sake if you are going to start a controversial topic at least have the decency to actually argue your points, instead of repeating the same shit over and over again.

<span id='postcolor'>

Awnser my question, what is the differance between a bullet and bomb? Why is it so terrible to kill him with one bullet? Its cheaper, safer, and faster. As for or law against assanation, it should be thrown away.<span id='postcolor'>

I've already told you the reasons why assassinating him won't do any good, ON TOP OF the reasons why we shouldn't do it on moral grounds. If he does get bumped off, we will still have to invade, and it will stilll be expensive, and innocents will stilll die, and your whole argument still goes out the fucking window. You call yourself a Christian- I think Jesus would probably have a few choice words on that subject, and you certainly are not anywhere near being a good American.

[DarkLight 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Duke_of_Ray @ Oct. 02 2002,02:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Why are pople making a big deal about assanating Sadam? It could save lives, and bombing him is the same thing. What is so wrong with using 1 bullet??  It is not like Sadam would not do the same to any one of us if he cared or wanted too.<span id='postcolor'>

Probable because there's a lot more envolved than just 1 stupid bullet.... Think...

[Sam Samson 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Oct. 03 2002,09:07)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">As for assassinating your Saddam there are some thing (besides moral) that are to be considered:

[*] It would be illegal according to US law. The 1973 executive order from Gerald Ford forbids US agencies to be involved in assasinations domestic or foregin. This executive order came because the CIA had become too trigger happy without considering the consequences of their actions.

[*] It would be destabilizing for the mid-east. A removal of Saddam must be a complete replacement of him and his government. Anything else creates a volatile situation where it is possible that a civil war could break out over a power struggle. Also Iran might be tempted to do something bad if they got the chance.<span id='postcolor'>

(this duke-kid really has a knack for starting ballooning threads. )

while I'm hard pressed to agree with denoir on many occations, ,in these two points he is absolutely correct: the US can- and should not go around assassinating heads of state. this law must remain on the books.

I mean, what would be next?

putin killing shevardnadze for allowing chechens in the pankisi valley? would open pandora's box. no, no.

those murderers, dictators and other psychopaths gotta be nabbed, duly tried and only then executed. (or they die in battle. )

sort of like they did with nazi war criminals after ww2.

no lynching. (duke: cain wasn't just killed neither for slaying abel. why? there was no law against that yet. came only later. God is against self-stlyed lynch-kind justice.)

while the US government must always put americans first, they should, like tex said, hold the high ground.

I believe america is great, because at the core it is good.

it will cease to be great once it isn't good anymore.

[Sam Samson 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Oct. 03 2002,09:07)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">In the 1950s there was a expression coined by the CIA - "blowback" to refer to unintended consequences of covert operations that come back to haunt the United States. When the term was first used, it referred to the consequences of the CIA's assassination of the then Iranian Prime Minister, Muhammad Mussadegh. The result of this self-serving interference in the affairs of Iran was to bring the Shah to power and 25 years of repression and tyranny, leading finally to the holding of the entire US Embassy in Tehran hostage for over a year and the revolution of the Ayatollah Khomeini. This polarization was in turn one of the factor behind the 11/9 attacks.<span id='postcolor'>

mossadegh: the cia didn't assassinate him, silly.

langley helped royalist forces, - the shah had already been in power -, to gain the upper hand and arrest him for treason on aug. 19, 1953. four days before that the shah had dismissed him from office.

mossadegh was condemned to 3 years of solitary confinement for treason. after that he remained a private person.

khomeini sent cassette tapes with his preaching from his exile in france to iran. they sparked the islamic revolution and his preaching fueled this hatred of all things american.

btw, khomeini once said: "we must destroy the great satan (US). the small satans will fall by themselves."

looks like somebody had himself a plan...

...denoir, why do you hate the US government so much?