PDA

View Full Version : 'Human shield' faces $10,000 fine


zimv20
Aug 10, 2003, 10:12 PM
http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/artikkel?SearchID=73143754660250&Avis=SH&Dato=20030809&Kategori=NEWS&Lopenr=308090382&Ref=AR


A Sarasota woman who served as a "human shield" during the war in Iraq faces thousands of dollars in civil penalties.

According to a letter dated March 20 from the federal Department of the Treasury, Faith Fippinger broke the law by crossing the Iraqi border -- a violation of U.S. sanctions that prohibit American citizens from engaging in "virtually all direct or indirect commercial, financial or trade transactions with Iraq."


sweet! the gov't is going after (and threatening w/ jail time and/or wage garnishment) a woman who did something she believed in. meanwhile, halliburton gets off scot-free for all its dealings w/ iraq, under sanctions, while cheney was at the helm.

tazo
Aug 11, 2003, 04:45 AM
If you break the law you will be punished, in most states, if your not a minority, and this woman broke the law and as a result she is being punished.


The way u stated it zim you were trying to implicate the govt. in taking away this woman's rights some how, when in actuality she just broke the law.

Zaid
Aug 11, 2003, 05:11 AM
Originally posted by tazo
If you break the law you will be punished, in most states, if your not a minority, and this woman broke the law and as a result she is being punished.

The way u stated it zim you were trying to implicate the govt. in taking away this woman's rights some how, when in actuality she just broke the law.

Yeh she broke the law, so she should be punished. I think what zim was getting at was that here treatment is inconsistent with the treatment of companies (with well placed friends) that also broke the same law.

tristan
Aug 11, 2003, 05:35 AM
According to Zim's logic, nobody should be punished for anything because Dick Cheney didn't get punished.

If I were in charge, i'd take that woman on a tour of Iraq's prison camps and mass graves, and she could see what kind of regime she was defending. She could start by reading Amnesty International's report on Iraq. Then I'd take that $10k fine and give it to the victim's families.

My boss at one of my first jobs was an Iraqi. When he was a teenager, he fought in the Iran-Iraq war. No, he didn't volunteer.

toontra
Aug 11, 2003, 05:55 AM
Originally posted by tristan
According to Zim's logic, nobody should be punished for anything because Dick Cheney didn't get punished.


At least that would be equitable. How can you argue otherwise, I wonder? Surely you can't be suggesting that the wealthy with political influence are exempt from the law?

abdul
Aug 11, 2003, 06:13 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by tristan
According to Zim's logic, nobody should be punished for anything because Dick Cheney didn't get punished.

i disagree, from what i can tell Zim was implying there is a two-tier law, one for the pubic and the other for the adminstration (which is illegal). If you remember i believe that boeing got fined for helping China on their spacecrafts.....fair enough that was illegal, so why is it that Halliburton are not getting fined or even publically humilated when they illegal deallings with Iraq.....cos when the dealling were taking place a Cheney part of the company!

If I were in charge, i'd take that woman on a tour of Iraq's prison camps and mass graves, and she could see what kind of regime she was defending. She could start by reading Amnesty International's report on Iraq. Then I'd take that $10k fine and give it to the victim's families.

As you said she (the lady in question) should read Amnesty Internatonals report on Iraq. Well if she did, she would have found out the sactions on that once prosperous country by the UN, in which the now 'tyrant' leader, who was internationally praised for modernising the country, were our fault and millions were dying for that reason alone. yes he was a bad man but we didnt make it any better for the public of Iraq....we made it worse so stop fooling yourselves into thinking that sadam however bad as he was, was to blame.

My boss at one of my first jobs was an Iraqi. When he was a teenager, he fought in the Iran-Iraq war. No, he didn't volunteer.

.....and your point being????the guy who works at my local takeaway is an Iraqi Kurd, he totally disagreed with the whole idea of the attack and was happy when US soldiers were killed, that contradicts what you just said......more examples

my local shopkeeper didnt fight in ww2 even when he got called up.

mo Ali refused to fight in Vietnam like many other US citizens.

so you comparing your experience with the a single Iraqi is flawed. the persons belief in the cause and courage has got to do with it rather than nationality. at the end of the day she knew the US would be more likely to be attacked as well as recruit more terrorists if this war went ahead. as well as life doesnt have a price, so when we say we only killed 500 iraqi people in the war but saddam has killed 5000 over his 20years is another worthless comparison.

Pinto
Aug 11, 2003, 06:48 AM
Originally posted by tazo
The way u stated it zim you were trying to implicate the govt. in taking away this woman's rights some how, when in actuality she just broke the law.

I think he was clearly implicating the govt in applying it's laws selectively, depending on campaign donations and how cosy you are with the Washington elite.

According to Zim's logic, nobody should be punished for anything because Dick Cheney didn't get punished.


No, according to Zim's logic all law-breakers should get punished equally.



If I were in charge, i'd take that woman on a tour of Iraq's prison camps and mass graves, and she could see what kind of regime she was defending. She could start by reading Amnesty International's report on Iraq.

Why not take Bush Snr or Donald R instead? You could ask them why they supplied money, weapons and intelligence to Saddam. in the war your boss was forced to fight in.

Saddam was just as much a ******* murderer back in the eighties when Donald R shook his hand and they took him off the list of terrorist supporting countries.

Zim's law suggests that Saddam should have been treated like a criminal from day one.

If a woman can be convicted and fined for following her conscience and risking her life to try protect civilian targets . How is it that the men who previously supported him and encouraged him, in a war that may have killed two million people and that your boss was lucky enough to survive, are able to hold the high offices they do? Holding their hands on their hearts, invoking God and bleating on about how evil Saddam is.

Under Zim's law the all people would be held accountable for supporting a killer like Saddam.

But lets face it, Zim's law is not even close to the real world.

pseudobrit
Aug 11, 2003, 06:50 AM
Here's a solution: make Halliburton pay $500,000 for every day they broke the sanctions. Fair? I'd be satisfied.

tristan
Aug 11, 2003, 09:00 AM
Oh, the old "we sold them some weapons during the cold war so we're responsible for everything they did from then on forever and ever" argument.

People love to say that the US is imperialist, an empire, etc. It's not. We're a country, and have relationships with other countries, but we don't run any other countries, and we're not responsible for what they do. If Saddam kills a kurd, that's his fault, not ours. We didn't put Saddam in power, and we never made him kill anyone.

People ask us for weapons, and we make a decision based on a lot of factors. Back in the 80s, the #1 factor was "are you fighting the Soviets?" If you were, or were by proxy (Iran was Soviet backed I believe), you got your weapons. Sure, we knew you might be a dictator, but the Soviets were pretty tough customers, and we needed all the help we could get. Not great, but that's the way it was. Nowadays, we generally have higher standards, but we just sold a lot of weapons to Pakistan, which isn't exactly a democracy, but they are helping us fight Al-Queda, so we turn a blind eye.

But if Musharraf decides to use those weapons on his own people, that's his decision. Just like it was Saddam's decision to draft my ex-boss and send him out to kill Iranians. Rumsfeld never told him to.

So go ahead and condemn Rumsfeld and Cheney for dealing with Saddam in the 80s if you like, but I hope you understand that having some common foreign policy objectives with a country twenty years ago isn't the same thing as being responsible for everything they do today.

zimv20
Aug 11, 2003, 11:11 AM
pinto's got it right -- i was pointing out the hypocrisy.

who did more damage to the iraqi people? halliburton et. al. by breaking sanctions and selling materiel to hussein, or a 62 y.o. woman who hid herself in a hotel in iraq?

another example is martha stewart. the feds wanna nail her on a, what was it?, $130k insider trade? fine -- but go after enron, MCI/WorldCom, et. al. for all the damage they've done. more hypocrisy.

mcrain
Aug 11, 2003, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by tristan
We didn't put Saddam in power, and we never made him kill anyone.

Nowadays, we generally have higher standards...

Actually, we did have something to do with Saddam being in power, and certainly, we had a lot to do with him staying in power.

Higher standards? Ha, you've got to be kidding me. Our administration loves to go to war with brown people, while ignoring the pleas and requests of people in a country we helped create in the first place. High standards my arse.

zimv20
Aug 11, 2003, 11:23 AM
tristan = san felipe?

toontra
Aug 11, 2003, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by zimv20
tristan = san felipe?

I was thinking the same thing ;)

3rdpath
Aug 11, 2003, 11:51 AM
a violation of U.S. sanctions that prohibit American citizens from engaging in "virtually all direct or indirect commercial, financial or trade transactions with Iraq."

lotsa luck proving that...

commercial...nope

financial....nada

trade...hardly

philosophical...certainly

i don't remember the expression of a belief as being illegal....at least before the year 2000. i hope the aclu will step in and call this administration's bluff.

make em prove her guilt...or is that still required in this country?
:rolleyes:

tristan
Aug 11, 2003, 12:02 PM
Uh... I don't know who san felipe is, but my BS detector went off on this thread big time.

"High standards my arse."

So that's your whole argument. There's a nice little debate here about the consequences of supporting undemocratic regimes. You can take the side of expediency, and the benefits of furthering important foreign policy goals, like I do, or you can take a higher moral ground and say that it's always unacceptable, but then you have to try to justify isolationism. It would dovetail nicely into the woman's reasons for her passive resistance strategy and haliburton's dealings with Iraq.

Of you can just write "high standards my arse" and something about little brown people. But then you'd come across as an intellectual lightweight with no cohesive argument. :-)

Sayhey
Aug 11, 2003, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by tristan
Oh, the old "we sold them some weapons during the cold war so we're responsible for everything they did from then on forever and ever" argument.

People love to say that the US is imperialist, an empire, etc. It's not. We're a country, and have relationships with other countries, but we don't run any other countries, and we're not responsible for what they do. If Saddam kills a kurd, that's his fault, not ours. We didn't put Saddam in power, and we never made him kill anyone.

People ask us for weapons, and we make a decision based on a lot of factors. Back in the 80s, the #1 factor was "are you fighting the Soviets?" If you were, or were by proxy (Iran was Soviet backed I believe), you got your weapons. Sure, we knew you might be a dictator, but the Soviets were pretty tough customers, and we needed all the help we could get. Not great, but that's the way it was. Nowadays, we generally have higher standards, but we just sold a lot of weapons to Pakistan, which isn't exactly a democracy, but they are helping us fight Al-Queda, so we turn a blind eye.

But if Musharraf decides to use those weapons on his own people, that's his decision. Just like it was Saddam's decision to draft my ex-boss and send him out to kill Iranians. Rumsfeld never told him to.

So go ahead and condemn Rumsfeld and Cheney for dealing with Saddam in the 80s if you like, but I hope you understand that having some common foreign policy objectives with a country twenty years ago isn't the same thing as being responsible for everything they do today.

I think there maybe just a few problems with your analysis. First, Iran was, if possible, even more anti-communist and anti-Soviet than the Reagan/Bush administration. It was Iraq that had a history of dealing with the Soviets. Daddy Bush and his boys had a problem with the independence of the Iranian regime and the fact that they had humiliated the US with the taking of the embassy. We had controlled Iran through the Shah for decades after the CIA kicked out Mossedegh in the '50s (read Kim Roosevelt if you want to know about it). By the way, that's an example of imperialist ambition if ever there was one. In order to get back at the Ayatollah we found it convenient to help arm another brutal dictator in Iraq's Saddam. Such strategies have consequences and I don't mean "just" helping a brutal war go on in which millions were killed. There is also the blowback we get when a stronger, more bold Saddam wishes to flex his muscles in Kuwait and use our resources to kill US troops. Did we make him attack Kuwait - no, but it doesn't seem logical not to look at the consequences of a failed policy. "So go ahead and condemn Rumsfeld and Cheney for dealing with Saddam in the 80s if you like" - absolutely, I did then and I will now.

Sayhey
Aug 11, 2003, 01:06 PM
Around the topic of the thread, let me see this woman who has first amendment rights to demonstrate her opinion and the right to travel is being prosecuted for what? Spending money on groceries while she was in Iraq? She sure as heck wasn't smuggling arms to Saddam - so what's the problem? This is a desperate and vindictive reach.

zimv20
Aug 11, 2003, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by Sayhey
This is a desperate and vindictive reach.

...to make an example out of someone who so openly defied the administration, imo.

tristan
Aug 11, 2003, 01:22 PM
You're right, I was off on the Soviet thing. We supported Iraq mainly because they were fighting the Iranians, and helping them was a way to hurt the Ayatollah.

(There were some Iran-USSR ties, but that wasn't a strong factor, because there were Iraq-USSR ties too.)

So you condemn Cheney and Rumsfeld for supporting a dictator. Let's say I'm with you. Supporting a brutal dictator is never good. Sure, sometimes there might be common foreign policy goals ('kill the ayatollah'), but let's say that those goals weren't important enough to justify supporting a brutal dictator. I'll go with you on that one.

But if you condemn them for supporting a dictator, will you be consistent and condemn miss human shield for supporting the same dictator?

zimv20
Aug 11, 2003, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by tristan

But if you condemn them for supporting a dictator, will you be consistent and condemn miss human shield for supporting the same dictator?

put halliburton et. al. on trial, then she can be tried, too.

"consistency is all i ask!" - tom stoppard

Sayhey
Aug 11, 2003, 01:39 PM
Originally posted by tristan
But if you condemn them for supporting a dictator, will you be consistent and condemn miss human shield for supporting the same dictator?

If she was there to support Saddam then yes, I will condemn her. If, as I suspect, she was there to place her body in front of others in order to prevent a war, then she has my admiration and respect.

toontra
Aug 11, 2003, 01:39 PM
Originally posted by tristan
But if you condemn them for supporting a dictator, will you be consistent and condemn miss human shield for supporting the same dictator?

I think there is an important difference which mitigates in favour of the human shield.

What she, and others, were doing was not motivated by greed or political expedience. Rather she was following a personal morality and seeking to prevent civilian casualties, and was prepared to put her own life at risk in the process.

Now, you may find her views misguided or even wrong-minded, but that doesn't equate her with those that sought personal or political gain. Does it?

tristan
Aug 11, 2003, 02:02 PM
Yeah, but if she's there to prevent a war in which regime change is the main objective, then she's helping keep a brutal dictator in power. Why admire and respect that?

Lofty, humanitarian motivations don't make your cause right. They just make you idealistic. :-)

zimv20
Aug 11, 2003, 02:08 PM
Originally posted by tristan
Yeah, but if she's there to prevent a war in which regime change is the main objective, then she's helping keep a brutal dictator in power.

i thought her and others' purpose was to protect civilian infrastructure, e.g. hospitals and schools.

i remember seeing some pre-war interviews w/ such people already in iraq. more than one had said that, if the iraqis tried to get them to protect military targets, they'd leave.

toontra
Aug 11, 2003, 02:14 PM
Originally posted by tristan
Yeah, but if she's there to prevent a war in which regime change is the main objective, then she's helping keep a brutal dictator in power. Why admire and respect that?

Ah, so here we have it!

"a war in which regime change is the main objective."

It's interesting to see that people are now discarding even the pretense of WMD as the main justification for war. My, what a distance we've travelled in such a short time!

tristan
Aug 11, 2003, 02:51 PM
1. You didn't address the issue. By protesting against a war in which regime change is the stated objective, does that make her complicit in Saddam's brutality? If not, why not?

2. Why won't you take a moral stand? i do - Saddam was a brutal dictator, and as someone who supports the Iraqi people's human rights and their right of self-determination, I'm very happy he's gone. Are you happy he's gone? Yes or no? Why or why not?

You can complain about anything - "US said that there were nukes" - "US didn't have full UN support" - "we gave them arms in the 80s" etc. So what? The butcher of Baghdad is gone now, and we found lots of questionable stuff in the process - buried nuke parts, the achille lauro hijacker, etc, that definitely made it clear he wasn't an asset to the international community. Is it so difficult for you to admit that the end of the Saddam regime is a good thing?

Sayhey
Aug 11, 2003, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by tristan
1. You didn't address the issue. By protesting against a war in which regime change is the stated objective, does that make her complicit in Saddam's brutality? If not, why not?

2. Why won't you take a moral stand? i do - Saddam was a brutal dictator, and as someone who supports the Iraqi people's human rights and their right of self-determination, I'm very happy he's gone. Are you happy he's gone? Yes or no? Why or why not?

You can complain about anything - "US said that there were nukes" - "US didn't have full UN support" - "we gave them arms in the 80s" etc. So what? The butcher of Baghdad is gone now, and we found lots of questionable stuff in the process - buried nuke parts, the achille lauro hijacker, etc, that definitely made it clear he wasn't an asset to the international community. Is it so difficult for you to admit that the end of the Saddam regime is a good thing?

So the logic is that either you supported the war or you support Saddam? All the millions of people who protested the preemptive action by the US are "complicit" with Saddam's brutality?

I and many people along with me supported getting rid of Saddam back in the days when Reagan and Bush supported him. That doesn't mean we have to support a US led invasion. Am I glad Saddam is no longer in power, sure, but that doesn't mean I support the methods, tactics, and reasons that brought his removal about.

My concern is that the policies of this administration have long term dangerous implications for our country and the world. If you don't think "empire building" is at the heart of those policies then just take a look a the statements of the architects of those policies. My oppostion to empire is, by the way, a moral stand.

3rdpath
Aug 11, 2003, 03:24 PM
Originally posted by tristan

Lofty, humanitarian motivations don't make your cause right. They just make you idealistic. :-)

that sounds a lot like a regime change to "liberate" the iraqi's doesn't it?

nothing like dogmatic hypocrisy.

:rolleyes:

tristan
Aug 11, 2003, 03:29 PM
What I hear you saying is that:
1. The removal of Saddam was a good thing. He was a brutal dictator that abused and mistreated his people.
2. But you don't support the way the US went about it.
3. So you don't support the war.

Obviously, reason #1 is a pretty good one - let's free 22 million people from the tyranny of a brutal dictator.

But you don't support the war. So reason #2 must be a pretty serious negative. Serious enough for you to condemn 22 million people to a life of being persecuted by Saddam.

So what makes you so mad about the US that you're willing to write off the future of 22 million people? Or do you just not value the lives of those 22 million people like I do?

toontra
Aug 11, 2003, 03:46 PM
Originally posted by tristan
What I hear you saying is that:
1. The removal of Saddam was a good thing. He was a brutal dictator that abused and mistreated his people.
2. But you don't support the way the US went about it.
3. So you don't support the war.

Obviously, reason #1 is a pretty good one - let's free 22 million people from the tyranny of a brutal dictator.

But you don't support the war. So reason #2 must be a pretty serious negative. Serious enough for you to condemn 22 million people to a life of being persecuted by Saddam.

So what makes you so mad about the US that you're willing to write off the future of 22 million people? Or do you just not value the lives of those 22 million people like I do?

Your reasoning is simplistic and flawed. It is perfectly consistent to despise Saddam's regime but oppose the ways and means of the US military intervention, as many on this forum have suggested, including Sayhay.

Is it that you can't understand that, or you choose not to?

Sayhey
Aug 11, 2003, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by tristan
What I hear you saying is that:
1. The removal of Saddam was a good thing. He was a brutal dictator that abused and mistreated his people.
2. But you don't support the way the US went about it.
3. So you don't support the war.

Obviously, reason #1 is a pretty good one - let's free 22 million people from the tyranny of a brutal dictator.

But you don't support the war. So reason #2 must be a pretty serious negative. Serious enough for you to condemn 22 million people to a life of being persecuted by Saddam.

So what makes you so mad about the US that you're willing to write off the future of 22 million people? Or do you just not value the lives of those 22 million people like I do?

Never said we should write off 22 million people. Indeed, I value the lives of those 22 million so highly I don't want to subject them to a military campaign where many thousands of them are killed and many thousands more maimed and wounded. There were many other things that we could have been done to help the Iraqi people themselves get rid of Saddam. If the sudden conversion of the same folks who supported Saddam in the '80s to overwhelming concern for Iraqi human rights is to be believed they would have done everything possible for removal of Saddam short of all out war. This concern is nothing but a ruse for geopolitical ambitions in the region. Again read the writings of the neoconservatives who pushed for this war since the end of the last one.

If there had really been a immediate threat from Saddam we could have built support for action under UN auspices and in compliance with international law. The US government couldn't wait for that UN support because it knew that the inspection regime might actually work and the pretext for invasion would disappear.

tristan
Aug 11, 2003, 04:26 PM
How is it consistent? I'm the one that's consistent - I'm against Saddam's regime, and for regime change. You're against Saddam's regime, but against regime change. That's inconsistent.

Somehow, you see the benefits of a regime change, but you see some other reason that we shouldn't have a regime change. That reason is so important to you, it wipes out the benefits. I'm trying to figure out what that reason is, because it doesn't make any sense to me.

tristan
Aug 11, 2003, 04:37 PM
That's a good argument, but in order for it to add up, you'd have to say "I think more misery will be caused by the US invasion than would be caused by another decade or two of Saddam's (or his kids) regime". I don't know the total casualty counts, but I seriously doubt an eight week war caused that many casualties, so in retrospect your casualty accounting was probably faulty.

If you had a way to remove the Saddam regime with fewer casualties (i.e. not going to war), then sure, that would be great. What's your plan?

You really seem upset about the way things were done by Bush and ascribe a lot of hidden motives to his administration. But you say you're happy with the outcome. Isn't it okay if the US did the right thing (i.e. getting rid of Saddam), even if not all the reasons were right?

toontra
Aug 11, 2003, 04:50 PM
Originally posted by tristan
How is it consistent? I'm the one that's consistent - I'm against Saddam's regime, and for regime change. You're against Saddam's regime, but against regime change. That's inconsistent.

Somehow, you see the benefits of a regime change, but you see some other reason that we shouldn't have a regime change. That reason is so important to you, it wipes out the benefits. I'm trying to figure out what that reason is, because it doesn't make any sense to me.

OK. This is getting boring but I'll spell it out one more time.

I, and I think many others, did not like Saddam's regime. I would have liked him stripped of any weapons he possessed which could have been a threat to his own people and other states.

But I did not support the idea of regime change for its own end, and I think there would have been even less international support for military action if that was the main justification (Blair for example wouldn't have got domestic support on that basis, so no UK, and probably no Spain or Australia either).

So we were told that we were in imminent threat from Saddam's WMD.

The UN was in the process of searching for those weapons when the US & UK, without the backing of the SC, decided between themselves that, despite the serious misgivings of many other countries, they would invade Iraq.

That is what I object to. Had the inspections revealed banned weapons, or had Saddam refused inspections, a second UN resolution would have almost certainly been passed, probably unanimously, and I would have had fewer misgivings about military action.

Now, please tell me exactly what it is you don't understand about that.

BTW, to say that I don't care about the fate of 22 million people "like you do" is the sort of emotive nonsense that makes me distrust your argument all the more.

tristan
Aug 11, 2003, 06:04 PM
1. You don't like the Iraqi regime.
2. You see the benefits of regime change for the Iraqi people.
3. But you think Bush and Blair were too pushy in advocating regime change and didn't give the UN enough of a chance.
4. So you stopped supporting regime change.
5. But now you agree that having Saddam gone is a good thing.

Step #4 is where you lose me. Why didn't you do the same thing I did - say to yourself, "well, bush is pushing it, and taking an unpopular position internationally, but hey, getting rid of Saddam is a good thing for the Iraqi people and the world in general."

Why did you instead say "No, I oppose the war."? What principle was so important to you?

I'm sorry if it's getting boring for you, but this is really what I want to now, because I just don't get how someone could agree that Saddam was a terrible leader, that the world is a better place with him gone - and yet, oppose the war.

The obvious benefit of a regime change is that 22 million people are no longer oppressed. To me, this is a huge worldwide benefit. Why were you willing to pass up this benefit? Are you that angry at bush and Blair?

To me that only makes sense if you think there was some other way to get rid of Saddam, but I don't think that anyone can make a case that inspections would have gotten rid of Saddam.

pseudobrit
Aug 11, 2003, 06:04 PM
Originally posted by tristan
Yeah, but if she's there to prevent a war in which regime change is the main objective, then she's helping keep a brutal dictator in power. Why admire and respect that?

WTF are you getting at? Are you just defending the oil companies or what?

No one's saying she's innocent, they're saying Halliburton is more guilty.

Lofty, humanitarian motivations don't make your cause right. They just make you idealistic. :-)

-- She went there for lofty humanitarian reasons, gave Saddam nothing and gets arrested.

-- Halliburton went there for blood money, gave Saddam cash and got off scot free.

pseudobrit
Aug 11, 2003, 06:06 PM
Originally posted by toontra
Your reasoning is simplistic and flawed. It is perfectly consistent to despise Saddam's regime but oppose the ways and means of the US military intervention, as many on this forum have suggested, including Sayhay.

Is it that you can't understand that, or you choose not to?

I oppose child molestation. I oppose using nuclear weapons on their towns to kill those who molest children.

I must love child molesters.

tristan
Aug 11, 2003, 06:17 PM
Well, people were saying that they "respect and admire" the human shield for her principles. My point was that they were using bad behavior (haliburton) to justify other bad behavior (supporting an oppressive regime).

Okay, point made, so if I could apply your logic (I wish you would have), you don't like Saddam, but don't want a regime change because it's too much force to use.

But that gets back to casualty accounting again. How many civilians are killed in an average year under Saddam hussein? How many more years would he have hung in there? And then, how many civilians were killed in the eight week war? In retrospect, do you think opposing the war based on high civilian casualty counts was faulty reasoning?

toontra
Aug 11, 2003, 06:30 PM
Originally posted by tristan
Why did you instead say "No, I oppose the war."? What principle was so important to you?

Simply the principle that it would have been far better to take military action in this case with the support of the UN and resolution backed by the majority of the Security Council.

I also distrusted the justification for war. I read the intelligence about WMD being an imminent threat, and the Iraq-Bin Laden connection, and I just didn't believe it (and everything I have seen since confirms my suspicions).

Then the timing of the action didn't make any sense. Why cut short inspections which were designed to do the very thing that could have avoided war?

I think principle is the correct word here. You obviously believe it is OK to say one thing and mean another (i.e. regime change rather than WMD). I don't - that simple.

Sayhey
Aug 11, 2003, 06:36 PM
Originally posted by tristan
That's a good argument, but in order for it to add up, you'd have to say "I think more misery will be caused by the US invasion than would be caused by another decade or two of Saddam's (or his kids) regime". I don't know the total casualty counts, but I seriously doubt an eight week war caused that many casualties, so in retrospect your casualty accounting was probably faulty.

If you had a way to remove the Saddam regime with fewer casualties (i.e. not going to war), then sure, that would be great. What's your plan?

You really seem upset about the way things were done by Bush and ascribe a lot of hidden motives to his administration. But you say you're happy with the outcome. Isn't it okay if the US did the right thing (i.e. getting rid of Saddam), even if not all the reasons were right?

As to civilian deaths, (this of course assumes we shouldn't worry about the Iraqi soldiers who died in the thousands), the AP has a prelimiary estimate of over 3,000 and I've heard etimates of up to 10,000. Check out:http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0611-06.htm
So no, my accounting is not faulty.

The plan would have been to help support many of the indigenous groups that were against Saddam, including the Kurdish oppostion, Shia groups, in the old days the Iraqi Democratic Front, and even throw in groups like the Iraqi National Congress. Any and all folks who were committed to change and needed a hand could have been supported long before Bush & Co. started paying lip service to support for democracy in Iraq.

Would any of it been easy - no. However, you seem to see only the side of the most efficent way to remove Saddam. This invasion raises questions far beyond the fate of Iraq. It raises the question of whether we intend as a nation to reserve onto ourselves the right to change other regimes and to use our military might to reorder the world in whichever way the administration sees fit. This is a fundamental shift away from the respect of international law, our traditions of opposition to colonialism (both rather important principles, by the way), and towards empire. So with these things in mind, no it's not ok that we conduct this war even though we accomplished one good thing - the removal of Saddam.

wwworry
Aug 11, 2003, 07:48 PM
Originally posted by tristan
I just don't get how someone could agree that Saddam was a terrible leader, that the world is a better place with him gone - and yet, oppose the war.

What you are missing was the possibility of change WITHOUT THIS PARTICULAR WAR. Clear enough for you?

A simplistic example - we get rid of Hussain and kill a cat OR we get rid of Hussain and don't kill a cat. Your answer always seems to be "Who cares, we got rid of Hussain."
except the cat is thousands of innocents dead
the cat is Bagdad streets 3 feet deep in human waste
the cat is almost everyday there is another dead US soldier
and what happens the next time Bush wants to invade someone - we are sure to know he is lying about something

professor
Aug 12, 2003, 04:43 AM
I wonder why nobody cares to discuss the question whether a so-called democratic country could/should ban its citizens from going anywhere.
I think whover went to Irak had all the reasons in the world to suspect that we were told a major bunch of lies by the American(British) governments. So going there to get first-hand info seems to me a necessity which has nothing to do with the question whether or not someone sympathizes with whomever.
Travelling and getting information is to me a basic human right. The U.S. violates this right by all laws, threats, and punishment. A law prohibiting travel is to me a human rights violation that occurs in totalitarian countries.
Americans are banned from travel to Irak and Cuba. Where else?
Kind of funny, from a European perspective...

Pinto
Aug 12, 2003, 05:38 AM
Originally posted by wwworry
What you are missing was the possibility of change WITHOUT THIS PARTICULAR WAR. Clear enough for you?

A simplistic example.....

I don't think there is much future in simplifying the examples down any further.

I think Tristan understands, and is just posting these nonsensical messages because he enjoys rousing everyone up.

toontra
Aug 12, 2003, 05:47 AM
Originally posted by Pinto
I don't think there is much future in simplifying the examples down any further.

I think Tristan understands, and is just posting these nonsensical messages because he enjoys rousing everyone up.

As was suggested a few posts ago, Tristan's posts bear a striking resemblance to a past member who has been banned.

Any way of the mods checking the URL of this newbie?

Sayhey
Aug 12, 2003, 10:11 AM
Originally posted by professor
I wonder why nobody cares to discuss the question whether a so-called democratic country could/should ban its citizens from going anywhere.
I think whover went to Irak had all the reasons in the world to suspect that we were told a major bunch of lies by the American(British) governments. So going there to get first-hand info seems to me a necessity which has nothing to do with the question whether or not someone sympathizes with whomever.
Travelling and getting information is to me a basic human right. The U.S. violates this right by all laws, threats, and punishment. A law prohibiting travel is to me a human rights violation that occurs in totalitarian countries.
Americans are banned from travel to Irak and Cuba. Where else?
Kind of funny, from a European perspective...

Not really funny at all, but you're right it is the core of the matter. The right of free citizens to travel has always been thought to be a basic right we Americans enjoy, but especially around travel to Cuba there has been a campaign to eliminate our rights in everything but name. It has taken the form of fines for the use of US currency in certain countries. Now if you want to go to Cuba you have to basically be a guest of someone there or risk a huge fine. It's another erosion of our rights that we don't seem to care about in the name of the war on communism, terrorism, or you name it.

mactastic
Aug 12, 2003, 10:34 AM
Originally posted by tristan
That's a good argument, but in order for it to add up, you'd have to say "I think more misery will be caused by the US invasion than would be caused by another decade or two of Saddam's (or his kids) regime". I don't know the total casualty counts, but I seriously doubt an eight week war caused that many casualties, so in retrospect your casualty accounting was probably faulty.

If you had a way to remove the Saddam regime with fewer casualties (i.e. not going to war), then sure, that would be great. What's your plan?

You really seem upset about the way things were done by Bush and ascribe a lot of hidden motives to his administration. But you say you're happy with the outcome. Isn't it okay if the US did the right thing (i.e. getting rid of Saddam), even if not all the reasons were right?

Ahh the old "the ends justify the means" argument. Good to know people still dust that one off and use it.:rolleyes:

professor
Aug 12, 2003, 11:00 AM
Originally posted by mactastic
Ahh the old "the ends justify the means" argument. Good to know people still dust that one off and use it.:rolleyes:

sounds like macfan. was he banned? I was out of town for a couple of weeks so I may have missed it.