Saddam's a bad, bad man

David Wulff

Oh no, please do carry on - the longer I stay reading in the Lounge the less time I have to spend on more depressing things like myself. :)

David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk

David Wulff Born and Bred.

David Wulff

D'oh. Okay, I'll lead... 1..2..3... everyone point at David and laugh. :-O

David Wulff http://www.davidwulff.co.uk

David Wulff Born and Bred.

Chris Austin

These are great points Brit. It just seems like the same f*^&ed up thing repeating itself. Without thinking much on it these examples come up. Slavery, WW2 Germany, Apartheid, Bosnia, Rowanda, Afghanistan Israel / Palestine, Iraq. I am just dumbfounded that this stuff seems to repeat itself so often. Brit wrote: In general, the historical response is: a leader can be as bad as he wants as long as he crosses no international boundaries. (Which is pretty much what the rule "respect each nation's sovereignty" advocates.) I am pretty much a "respect each nation's sovereignty" advocate but, it seems like it is so "black & white." It just seems that people are afraid to do the right thing until it is too late and war is unavoidable. <stateTheObvious> It seems like there has got to be a better way. </stateTheObvious> Fill me with your knowledge, your wisdom, your coffee.

Lost User

It repeats because of concentration of power. See how an educated and democratic Germany could go into Nazi Germany because the actions of one group was not checked. It is a call for all of us to stand up for civil liberties and make sure that our countries don't pass laws that cause concentration of power. The only thing that I find disheartening in the current US politics, is the apparent lack of opposition to anything - not from the democrats, not from the media. I agree that there are security issues to be solved; but it does not justify taking off the regulations that a judge has to certify a wire-tap, if it has to be legal. There are so many other laws, that remove constitutional safeguards to prevent misuse of power. I am not suggesting that GWB or Ashcroft or Rumsfeld is doing it to meet their own ends. Everything is allright, when we have guys who believe in democracy heading our governments. But, how can we say that tomorrow we will not have a leader, who misuses these to consolidate power? Thomas My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers

KaRl

Continental powers vs Ocean powers ?

Ohé Partisans, Ouvriers et Paysans C'est l'alarme! Le Chant des Partisans

brianwelsch

Thomas George wrote: But, how can we say that tomorrow we will not have a leader, who misuses these to consolidate power? This is one reason why I firmly believe that some type of time limit should be imposed on laws. When that time period is up, the law must be reviewed. I haven't thought through the details of this, but I think the concept works on several levels. BW "I'm coming with you! I got you fired, it's the least I can do. Well, the least I could do is absolutely nothing, but I'll go you one better and come along!" - Homer J. Simpson

KaRl

If he's guilty of this, let's try him in front of an International Court of Justice, like Nazis were, like Milosevitch is, like Pinochet should have been.

Ohé Partisans, Ouvriers et Paysans C'est l'alarme! Le Chant des Partisans

Lost User

what i am not certain yet is: - Why would not a federal judge give FBI permission to wiretap a possible terrorist, that they need to repeal this check? Obviously, the bureaucratic delays can be reduced, because the judge does not have any defense to hear. He is just looking at some intelligence or evidence that points to the possibility. What time frames would you give such a law? 2 years. We are already past an year after 9/11. Osama is still out there; and we have no idea, when we will get them. My concern is that our paranoia for Osama will lead to a system that eveolved over many years of mistakes and corrections will get changed to one that has lesser checks and balances and thereby, prone to abuse. No one, in the opposition, in the government, or in the media is making this an issue. We had FBI and CIA ignore so many warnings in the past that make me think that the laws are not the problem; enforcement is. It is much like running red, when there are no vehicles around. Once you get to think that it is ok, then it is ok. We have to guard our systems and make them better, not worse My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers

Brit

It just seems like the same f*^&ed up thing repeating itself. Without thinking much on it these examples come up. Slavery, WW2 Germany, Apartheid, Bosnia, Rowanda, Afghanistan Israel / Palestine, Iraq. I think things are slowly getting better. It takes a long time because many of the problems in the world are caused by thoughts in people's minds. Each new generation makes a little progress in eroding those old ways. The problems that we've seen in the 20th century are pretty much all throwbacks to problems which have existed for centuries, but which haven't been sorted out. Bosnia is about the ethnic/religious tensions which has existed for centuries (going back, at least, to Muslim conquests of the Balkans), but those problems were forgotten about because the USSR suppressed the area for so long. Palestine is about a Jewish homeland (since the Romans destroyed it in 70AD) which was brought to a head after WW2. Nazi Germany's genocide was about many centuries-long racism against Jews (look up the protestant reformer, Martin Luther's book "The Jews and their Lies"). Slavery is all but eraticated (but still exists in some third-world countries, like Sudan). Slowly, things are getting better - with the occasional flare-up caused by applying a wrong solution to a long-standing "problem" (e.g. Nazi Germany's final solution for the Jews, Saddam's bombing of the Kurds). The only downside is that the capability to do harm is greater now than ever (read: nuclear, biological, chemical weapons). That's why WMD need to be kept out of areas which still simmer with these problems (places like the Middle East). ------------------------------------------ "Isn't it funny how people say they'll never grow up to be their parents, then one day they look in the mirror and they're moving aircraft carriers into the Gulf region?" - The Onion

Brit

If he's guilty of this, let's try him in front of an International Court of Justice, like Nazis were, like Milosevitch is, like Pinochet should have been. Yes, I'm sure he'd come to court if we just sent him a letter. ------------------------------------------ "Isn't it funny how people say they'll never grow up to be their parents, then one day they look in the mirror and they're moving aircraft carriers into the Gulf region?" - The Onion

brianwelsch

My thought of law time limits has little to do with our current situation regarding terrorism and loss of civil liberties. Though decisions regarding this would certainly be effected. I could see that different types of laws may have shorter or longer terms, in the 5/10/20 year range. The idea is that society changes, and so laws that make sense don't make sense 10 years from now. The other thought is that the review process would take up time in congress keeping rediculous pork barreling to a minimum. However, laws may also be more freely passed because of the time limit. thats one obvious delemma. My thought is that on a personal level, I make goals, budgets, guidelines for myself that help me run my life. These are only valid for a short period of time usually however, because my situation changes, and so a new set of goals, etc. need to be made for me to effective live out my life. It seems this could somehow move to the federal level. Actually, now I think of it, is there currently I mission statement for the government? Does congress have a set of goals, it is trying to achieve? I doubt it? Not officially anyway. If it did it could review older laws based on this mission statement, as well discuss new laws with this mission in mind, rather basing decisions on current emotions and politics. Regarding civil liberties, I agree with your stance on line tapping. It seems the current system should work fine for that. Perhaps allow for specific types of evidence to cause immediate grants for surveillance. Thomas George wrote: Once you get to think that it is ok, then it is ok. Income Tax is a perfect example of this. BW "I'm coming with you! I got you fired, it's the least I can do. Well, the least I could do is absolutely nothing, but I'll go you one better and come along!" - Homer J. Simpson

KaRl

Let's try :)

Ohé Partisans, Ouvriers et Paysans C'est l'alarme! Le Chant des Partisans

KaRl

Nemanja Trifunovic wrote: In good old times people Not so old here in Europe. Remember Srebrenica[^] ?

Ohé Partisans, Ouvriers et Paysans C'est l'alarme! Le Chant des Partisans

Vuemme

It seems that mr. Blair has been very busy in the last 14 years if he discovered that information only yesterday... I think that presenting this sort of reports as news is using people's ignorance to justify a war. And using this kind of things as justification means that this war has no justification at all (or that the is better to keep the real justification well hidden...). Saddam didn't respect human right since he got power. He used chemical weapons against his own people in 1988 but at that time he was useful to avoid the spreading of the islamic revolution of Iran in other muslim countries. Yesterday the US and UK airforce bombed some military installation near Bassora because some planes had been attacked in Kurdistan. It's like opening an umbrella in Miami because it's raining in London, but most of the people who hear the news on TV didn't know where Bassora, Kurdistan or Iraq are located (and many of them ignore also the location of London and Miami...). -- Looking for a new screen-saver? Try FOYD: http://digilander.iol.it/FOYD

Vuemme

If he's guilty of this, let's try him in front of an International Court of Justice, like Nazis were, like Milosevitch is, like Pinochet should have been. I think that many people and many goverments wouldn't like a public trial. -- Looking for a new screen-saver? Try FOYD: http://digilander.iol.it/FOYD

KaRl

Yes, it's easy to speak about human rights, but when it comes to the implementation bizness comes first :(

Ohé Partisans, Ouvriers et Paysans C'est l'alarme! Le Chant des Partisans

Vuemme

Human rights are used to justify a war and that's crazy, IMHO. The same people that discover human rights today (mr. Bush, mr. Blair etc.) are the same people (or son of the same people) that ignored the same issues for years and decades. Those self-proclamed human rights defenders avoid to extend their current interest for Iraq to other situations (Algeria, Pakistan, the former USSR, Uganda, Zaire and many other African countries, Burma etc...) where the violation of human rights is more profitable. It seems that people became "human" only when their rights are useful for some economical, military or political lobbies... I don't like saddam, but I think that a war to replace him is another tragedy that the people of Iraq doesn't deserve. They bombed afghanistan, just to discover that osama is more intelligent than their missiles and muhammad omar runs faster than Valentino Rossi on his motorbike; now they're ready to play level 2... -- Looking for a new screen-saver? Try FOYD: http://digilander.iol.it/FOYD

KaRl

Vuemme wrote: Valentino Rossi My Hero! :-D

Ohé Partisans, Ouvriers et Paysans C'est l'alarme! Le Chant des Partisans

brianwelsch

So what do you propose Vuemme? Just because we didn't do something 10 years ago, doesn't mean we should continue to do nothing. Of course, there is more to it than human rights. Nobody is claiming thats all there is to it. But on the other hand you can not honestly tell me you care so much for the Iraqis that you'd wish them continued pain and suffering at the hands of Hussein. Sure war would be horrible, but I can't imagine life's too pleasant now anyway. I get so tired of this. People would rather debate around and around and around about what the perfect solution is. News Flash, folks!! There isn't one! Governments like people make the wrong decisions. But we sit around debating it sort of half-hoping it will just go away on its own. Maybe, if we don't do anything long enough a new crisis will divert our attention, and we can forget all about the Iraqis again. Sure US/UK maybe screwed up, but what the hell has anybody else done, but stand up and say "why all of sudden are you guys concerned? We've been here hemming and hawwing, with an ocassional hurumph mind you, over an espresso for years about just this thing. " There. I'm done. Good day:) BW "I'm coming with you! I got you fired, it's the least I can do. Well, the least I could do is absolutely nothing, but I'll go you one better and come along!" - Homer J. Simpson

Vuemme

So what do you propose Vuemme? Just because we didn't do something 10 years ago, doesn't mean we should continue to do nothing. I didn't say that western government did nothing... some of them (and some large businness) did something to help saddam, for his oil or his money. I think that the problem of human rights is not only an issue of Iraq's government. Western countries have good economic and financial means to help the people and force the government to a democratic path. Promoting fair trade, fair working and living conditions, democracy is a good mean to spread respect for human rights. Absolute respect for human right in our countries is another important way to show how much we care about that. Check www.emergency.it or www.antislavery.org for more detailed explanations of ways to help people and their countries without bombing them. Of course, there is more to it than human rights. There is something else, not something more. But on the other hand you can not honestly tell me you care so much for the Iraqis that you'd wish them continued pain and suffering at the hands of Hussein. Yes, but I hope that we could stop their sufferings, not simply change the hands that give it. Sure war would be horrible, but I can't imagine life's too pleasant now anyway. I think that you should see what a cluster bomb or a landmine can do to a child before you can accept war as a solution. Sure US/UK maybe screwed up, but what the hell has anybody else done, but stand up and say "why all of sudden are you guys concerned? We've been here hemming and hawwing, with an ocassional hurumph mind you, over an espresso for years about just this thing. " The guys of Amnesty International or Emergency didn't spend much time drinking coofee. They publish reports that were ignored until they became a good excuse for the bombing, or they open hospitals in Iraq (but also in afghanistan, cambogia, angola) to help the people and let them know that "western civilization" (as our dumb prime minister stated...) is not only intelligent bombs and businness people. Emergency's founder Gino Strada left Italy on september 12th to go in Kabul to reopen his hospital that was closed by the talibans because he let woman work. He crossed the line of fire from panshir to kabul during the bombings, tring to heal as many people as possible (and emergency has another hospital in Anabah, Panshir, to assist wounded pe