If the government was so worried about WMD, our buddies in Pakistan sold stuff to Libya for their A-bomb program. Then of course there is North Korea. If the government was worried about human atrocities, then there are plenty of African nations to liberate. On the **** list, I'd say there was plenty of work to do before this Iraq thing.
You can be evil without being a terrorist. Kim Jong Il starves his people while the army lives high on the hog. He is a defiant dictator that is borderline irrational and has threatened his neighbors. He has not attacked anyone, though, nor has he sponsered attacks by anyone else. Evil, yes. Terrorist supporter, no. Of course, the main reason we have not attacked North Korea is that it would draw a nuclear response, either against us or against our allies in the region. This is a big reason we do not want other nations to develop nuclear arms.
Looks like you just descrribed saddam. The only thing that I have heard of saddam supporting is the families in Palestine. And the money he was giving was not just to the terrorists, but even casualties caused by the Israeli Army, plus that is a whole nother argument and was in a whole nother time period
So because saddam and Kim Jong Il are both evil, we have to either attack both at the same time or neither at all. What is your point?
West point generals' 4 step strategy guide: 1. Identify a problem... 2. Summate possible solutions given pertinent info. 3. Make the best solution happen 4. Act, and control foreseen and unforseen events... North Korea is a problem, and the best way to handle a problem is with minimal force applied...However, the severity of force is dictated by the offensive country/threat... Given that, there are discounts to the level of threat in North Korea as compared to what was propagated from Iraq when we acted... 1. In addition to the intel. of WMD in both countries, Saddam has shown a willingness to use such weaponry on his own people on a vast, remarkable scale as opposed to Kim Jong 2. Saddam and sons, have embraced the terroristic ideology within their own country against their own people including countless thousands upon thousands of brutal deaths, torture, and rape...While Kim Jong may have killed dissidents of his rule, the balance of fear, maim, and death is heavily tilted towards Iraq. In addition, North Korea is geograhically disadvantaged concerning proximity to Al Qaeda home-basing... Included with the terroristic ideology is their manner for openly celebrating terroristic deeds in other countries with cash money rewards for death and terror...No doubt, speculation surely and logically indicates the next step is invitation of outside terrorists as prime guests since the regimes facination and glorification of terroristic dealings unquestionably exists... 3. In modern times, Iraq has invaded a weaker, smaller neighbor...North Korea has kept itself out of conquest since the Korean war. * In addition to the above 9/11 showed the President and the rest of the United States, that we will be attacked on that day, on another day, again, and again, and again till you are dead...The fight against terror means countries absolutely denouncing acts of such and definitely no such support in any way...When this truly happens, the war against terror will be won!...So 9/11 shows the fight, like it or not is here against us as citizens of the United States...The people who get paid the big bucks to think about military tactics and strategy have summized and concluded offensive tactics against terroristic ilk/ideology/agents and supporters must be utilized... When you take all of the above into account, it is most logical to make the decision to r****d the terroristic like regime of Saddam in Iraq...In a year or so,...perhaps less, the work will be done and the vast majority of our freedom fighters will be elsewhere... The fight against terror will be won in steps and will take many, many, many moons... To mis/quote my favorite attorney general (Reno, of course):... Saddam is only a step,... Usama is just a step,... Prohibition of public terror is the goal!
See, I reckon there is more strategy to this than just compiling a **** list. Iraq is in the Middle East and a democratic Iraq should be a key in bringing stability to that region of the world-- which is hotter than any other region of the world. Agreed there are many places that exist under miserable circumstances, but you can't tackle them all at once. Maybe the US decided to kick Saddam's tail first because they knew how difficult it would be to find bin Laden. Perhaps their plan is to keep pressure on bin Laden to keep him on the run while his health and resources run out-- thus making him easier prey at a later time. In the meantime, let's stabilize Iraq. Sounds like a plan to me.
So it sounds like you are arguing that just because they felt like picking him up, they must have some very damning evidence against him??? That is the entire reason for our system of due process, to guarantee that the government CANNOT just pick someone up and keep the charges and evidence secret. You were arguing for the left to stop comparing Bush to Hitler, but this is just the kind of thing that the Gestapo did. He is a US citizen, not an enemy combatant. If he truly did commit treason, he can be executed for it AFTER THE TRIAL! In the kind of America I would like to live in, the Constitution and Bill of Rights are far more important than the temporary and illusory "security" being provided by GWB and his cronies. We should do everything ALLOWED BY THE CONSTITUTION to combat terrorism, but if we compromise the principles on which we built this country, then we really are moving towards facism. You may not like the comparison, but it is valid.
BTW, I note that none of you right leaners has responded to rimrocker's post decrying the comparisons from the right (Hillary to Hitler, Dashcle to Saddam, etc.). If you don't like Bush being compared to Hitler by the left, maybe you need to rein in some of your extremists. Or is this a clear double standard that you are willing to overlook?
Originally posted by andymoon So it sounds like you are arguing that just because they felt like picking him up, they must have some very damning evidence against him??? That is the entire reason for our system of due process, to guarantee that the government CANNOT just pick someone up and keep the charges and evidence secret. You were arguing for the left to stop comparing Bush to Hitler, but this is just the kind of thing that the Gestapo did. He is a US citizen, not an enemy combatant. If he truly did commit treason, he can be executed for it AFTER THE TRIAL! <b>Can you not be both a US citizen and an Enemy Combatant?</b> In the kind of America I would like to live in, the Constitution and Bill of Rights are far more important than the temporary and illusory "security" being provided by GWB and his cronies. We should do everything ALLOWED BY THE CONSTITUTION to combat terrorism, but if we compromise the principles on which we built this country, then we really are moving towards facism. You may not like the comparison, but it is valid. <b>I wish it were so but the Constitution was written at a time when the weapons of war were muskets and cannons. Man, they even widened Dr. Naismith's lanes when the players got too tall! Some brainiac even wanted to take the bottom out of the peach basket; imagine that! The Constitution is not inviolate; it has been amended 20-something times. If the "Republican Gestapo" is as awful as you fear them to be, they will lose re-election (losing my vote along the way) and the Democrats will save us all from a fascist death-spiral. That's what's great about America.... </b>
Of course it's not right, although the one guy was making a decent case in comparing political agendas, wasn't he? You are comparing major league (MoveOn.org) to minor league (peeontherepubllic.com). One gets and seeks national media attention and one has to be googled into our conscience.
If you are a US citizen, you have an inviolate RIGHT to a trial by jury, after which, if they find you guilty of treason, you can be put to death. If he is truly an enemy combatant and has committed treason, let the government prove it as they are required to do by our laws. ![/B][/QUOTE] And if they want to be able to do those things, they should amend the Constitution FIRST. You can't just use 9/11 as justification to trash the Constitution. If it needs to be amended to reflect security concerns, that is fine, but this administration is just doing what it wants, regardless of legality or constitutionality.
Originally posted by andymoon If you are a US citizen, you have an inviolate RIGHT to a trial by jury, after which, if they find you guilty of treason, you can be put to death. If he is truly an enemy combatant and has committed treason, let the government prove it as they are required to do by our laws. <b>Treasonous offenses occur outside of a circumstance of war. Are we playing lay-lawyer here? Does a condition of war and a status of Enemy Combatant supercede rights as a citizen of the US? I'm asking. Are you telling?</b> And if they want to be able to do those things, they should amend the Constitution FIRST. You can't just use 9/11 as justification to trash the Constitution. If it needs to be amended to reflect security concerns, that is fine, but this administration is just doing what it wants, regardless of legality or constitutionality. <b>I don't agree with you that the Constitution is being trashed. It's not like they just made these rules up willy-nilly-- as you charge. Aren't they following the law as it is written? Hasn't the ACLU been challenged to reveal the rampant abuses of The Patriot Act and they have been unable to do so?</b>
Just as a reminder, here's the bulk of my post with a little extra bolding to help... Don't try to dismiss this stuff by saying it was minor league... Bush League maybe, but it came from major power bases.
Per andymoon's challenge and my reply, I was only referring to the Hillary/Daschle references and I only tackled the Hillary one. The Max Cleland thing is overboard for sure, but honestly I've never seen it until you posted it here. Our whole culture has gotten ruder and more viscious. Is there any turning back? I hope so.
I cannot give you a definitive legal position, but it is my opinion that if one is a citizen, they have an inviolate right to a trial, as guaranteed by our constitution. The "enemy combatant" tag is (to my knowledge) a brand new one they made up so that they wouldn't have to follow the Geneva Convention regarding prisoners of war. That tag should not be able to be applied to citizens of the US who are guaranteed a trial by jury in a timely fashion. The only rules that have been more willy-nilly in our history are the mandatory minimums that went into place after Len Bias overdosed on cocaine. The ACLU HAS challenged the government's position and won. The point is that the Bushies tried things that were blatantly unconstitutional.
The <i>logistics</i> of handling the Pakistan situation has always fascinated me..................but I have been unable to arrive at a satisfactory way to solve it. Do you have an idea that you would like to share?
And it continues... Aside from the comparisons of Dean to every Dictator in the 20th Century, I especially like the idea that if YOU are not personally affected you should not care. From today's New York Post... _____________ HOWARD THE COWARD By RALPH PETERS -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Email Archives Print Reprint January 5, 2004 -- IT'S fashionable in left- wing circles to describe anyone who admires America as a fascist. But the real totalitarian threats of our time come from the left. And no public figure embodies the left's contempt for basic freedoms more perfectly than Howard Dean. One secular gospel of the left preaches that the Patriot Act has drastically curtailed American freedom. Free speech, the teacup Trotskys claim, is a thing of the past. Whenever one of my forlorn leftie pals raises the issue, I ask him or her to cite a single example of how the Patriot Act has limited their personal liberty. They never can. Instead, they rail about what-ifs and slippery slopes. But Howard Dean and his Deanie-weenies do all they can to restrict the free speech of others. I can predict with certainty that Dean's Internet Gestapo will pounce on this column, twisting the facts and vilifying the writer, just as they do when anyone challenges Howard the Coward. Free speech, you see, is only for the left. Dean wants to muzzle his Democratic competitors, too. He believes the Democratic National Committee should shut them up. His followers try to intimidate other presidential aspirants by surrounding the cars delivering them to their rallies and chanting to drown out their speech. Of course, Dean denies any foreknowledge or blame. These are the techniques employed by Hitler's Brownshirts. Had Goebbels enjoyed access to the internet, he would have used the same swarm tactics as Dean's Flannelshirts. Then there are Dean's endless "Big Lies": Liberating 25 million Iraqis was "wrong." Saddam's capture doesn't make any difference. Osama bin Laden should be presumed innocent, despite his own admission of responsibility for the 9/11 attacks. Bush knew in advance about the 9/11 attacks. The Global War on Terror is a failure. The economy's a disaster. And the administration is hiding terrible secrets. Paranoids and conspiracy theorists rejoice! You finally have a candidate of your own. Of course, when Dean seals his gubernatorial records so Americans can't examine his own back-room deals, that's perfectly legitimate. In Dean's alternate reality, everything the Bush administration has done and might do is a failure, no matter the facts. The president's even responsible for Mad Cow Disease. It's Goebbels again: Just keep repeating the lies until the lies assume the force of truth. I met Dean a few times while taping a TV panel show in Montreal. The first time I saw him, chattering on a monitor, I had no idea who he was. I assumed he was some small-time politician on the hustle, Babbitt at the ballot box. I was stunned to learn he was (then) the governor of one of our 50 states - even if the state was the People's Republic of Vermont. After a few tapings, I declined to continue doing the show. It was a waste of time to travel so far just to spend all the air-time politely explaining why Dean's comments on foreign policy bore no relation to the reality I'd seen with my own eyes. Dean was already practicing the Big Lie. Montreal was just a stop on his journey from Munich to Berlin. He was already looking around for his Leni Riefenstahl. Listen to Dean's rhetoric, especially on security and international issues. He never offers specifics; it's all hocus-pocus. He knows how best to deal with terrorists. We voters from the humble Volk need to take it on trust. He understands how to employ our military more effectively - despite dodging the draft during the Vietnam War. Dean's going to improve our intelligence system, too. How? If pressed, he may go so far as to mention HUMINT - a term he doesn't understand - or the need for more Arabic speakers. Great, Herr Howie. We agree. But how does he intend to develop our human intelligence capabilities? Which presidential directives and findings would he rescind or issue? Precisely what would he do that isn't being done? He has no answers. None. As for the need for more linguists, how would he recruit them, then train and retain them? Does he intend to reinstate the draft? Dean never deals in specifics on security issues. Because he doesn't know the specifics. It's all Big Brother Doublespeak. Perhaps it would be easier for those on the left to grasp this column's arguments if we cast the drama with characters closer to their hearts. Dean began his campaign as an uncompromising Lenin. Now that his Bolsheviks have been organized, he's trying to pose as Gorbachev for the masses. But for anyone who pays attention to what this power-hungry huckster says and does, he comes off as a down-market Brezhnev. Of course, I don't really see Howard Dean as a potential dictator - just another hollow man soiling the halls of power. And this is America. Our system is far stronger than any individual. Besides, even the vilest dictators have a vision of something greater than themselves. Howard Dean has nothing beyond ambition. And a shameless disregard for the First Amendment. Ralph Peters is a retired Army intelligence officer and the author of "Beyond Baghdad."
Originally posted by andymoon I cannot give you a definitive legal position, but it is my opinion that if one is a citizen, they have an inviolate right to a trial, as guaranteed by our constitution. The "enemy combatant" tag is (to my knowledge) a brand new one they made up so that they wouldn't have to follow the Geneva Convention regarding prisoners of war. That tag should not be able to be applied to citizens of the US who are guaranteed a trial by jury in a timely fashion. <b>From the web: "In its argument to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit this week, the government insisted that military-style rules like the enemy combatant doctrine now apply to American citizens, even on American soil, because Al Qaeda has "made the battlefield the United States." It seems that this is just a new application of the Enemy Combatant provision since we've not fought wars on our soil-- other than the civil war. So I'd say that they didn't "just make it up." Any military historians here? Mango?</b> The only rules that have been more willy-nilly in our history are the mandatory minimums that went into place after Len Bias overdosed on cocaine. The ACLU HAS challenged the government's position and won. The point is that the Bushies tried things that were blatantly unconstitutional. <b>What is blatantly unconstitutional? Defiance of a lower court decision about Padilla? Where has the ACLU won? Barbara Boxer tried to come up with such evidence and came up empty-handed. The government has long had the power to subpoena your library records, etc. That is not new. They process may have been expedited in The Patriot Act.</b>
There you go, giddy, an article from the New York Post that refers to Nazi officials over and over. When will those on the right start blasting their mouthpieces for using the comparisons that they find so distasteful?
To start, how about leaning on them to reduce their arsenal of nukes? And the proliferation WMDs? I realize that the Pakistani situation is a bit more complex, considering the on/off hostilities with India. Perhaps a dialog is necessary with both as a part of the bigger solution. My point is that it is very important that Pakistan is engaged in some manner sooner than later (by us, a coalition of the willing, whoever) in my opinion.
