Assassinating terrorists OK?

Both of these statements are emphatically false.

The analogy is precisely what the war on terror is all about. It is about preventing that catastrophic first strike because passive defense isn't enough. And yes, that includes Saddam.

Saddam had hosted and supported terrorists and terrorist training camps. Saddam had developed and used WMD's indiscriminately. Saddam did have interactions of some nature with Al Qaeda. Saddam did have interactions with other terror groups hostile to the US. Saddam according to the Russians no less had made it his goal to promote and facilitate terrorism against the US.

It seems apparent now with the info recently revealed by one of his generals that he let the inspectors back in so that they would not find weapons that had been moved. Had we bought it, the inspectors would have had no justification to go back and he would have been back in business. It was a political gamble that didn't work out for him. Had he been given the summer, an invasion in the fall would have been detered by his threat.

Had this all played out, folks like you would be condeming Bush for not getting Saddam when we had the chance. We'd all be lamenting the fact that a terror sponsor was now in the WMD production business. God forbid an attack had taken place, you'd have blamed Bush for that too.

Bush did the only prudent thing he could have considering the evidence and factors involved.

 

Yes. Kill them. Call it what you like. It's punishment and self-defense all rolled into one. They deserve to die for what they did and if they are dead they can't do any more harm.

 

Yeah, that was Bush's rationale, but it was ridiculously feeble. Iraq had NO ability to strike the US first. We are half a world away and Iraq had nothing even near that strike capability.</font>[/QUOTE] That is extraordinarily naive when we have several thousands of mile of unguarded shoreline and borders... especially considering 9/11.

How much bio/chem do you think it would take to contaminate NY's water supply at the source? Do you really think it would be difficult to get in?

You want to make half a world away a matter of hours? Fly a leer jet with a bomb inside to NY and detonate the whole thing over the city.

We live in a small world.

You monitor them and make sure that they do not acquire WMDs. As we discovered after the invasion, the UN inspections were SUCCESSFUL.</font>[/QUOTE] No they weren't. There are still unaccounted for weapons. The UN said things were there that have no record of being destroyed and have not been found. That isn't a good thing... and it certainly isn't "success".

Saddam had yellow cake.

He had all of the necessary components for chem weapons stock piled. He had plans for a centrifuge and scientists ready to restart the program.

Most of all and so terribly overlooked by you... he had a will to do harm. Where there is a will... there will be a way.

But we aren't killing them are we Daisy? Iraqis aren't even killing them. It is outsiders who have a vested interest in seeing democracy fail so that many thousands more can be killed or oppressed by someone like Saddam or the Taliban.

Yeah, that's why they "sexed up" the intelligence.</font>[/QUOTE] Prove it. If that's true, are you likewise condeming Kerry, Clinton, et al?

That is one of the least discerning statement in a post chock full of them. Saddam DID have WMD technology and experience. He did have relationships with anti-US terrorists. Hardly a toothless tiger... especially considering he had the will to do harm.

He was overjoyed with 9/11 Daisy. You think he was no threat?

Oh brilliant Scott! That's exactly what "police action" and "working with other governments" means. Yeah, "arrest, try and punish" is precisely the same as waiting and hoping </font>[/QUOTE] But you have to wait until they actually do that something huh? Exactly my point. You have to hope against hope that they won't.

Except I didn't. Your post to this point proves it. You naively think that Saddam had neither the will nor the means to strike the US even after 9/11 proved that it can be done with far less resources.

Saddam was kicking the inspectors out! What then Daisy? Hope he didn't restart his program in secret? How would you know since obviously we can't go on the intelligence agencies' words for it according to you.

Yes and if you had read my post on another thread, you would have seen that I recognized that Bush Sr did exactly what you describe. He baited Saddam.

I didn't bring it up... you did. You started in with the "attack a country" rhetoric. Not me.

 

What threat precisely and when was made by Saddam?

What nonsense. Your analogy has no precision whatsoever. Pretending that al Qaeda launching an actual attack against us is the same as Saddam ... what do he do against us, precisely? ... disliking us is preposterous.

Indiscriminately? Oh come on, Scott, surely even you can see the absurdity of that statement. I challenge you to back that one up with some evidence other than your say so.

Of somenature? Yeah, well, so have we. Who funded the muhajadeen? Hint: not Saddam.

Interactions? What kind of "interactions" and which "terror groups"? Does it matter that we stirred up trouble amongst the Kurds of Iraq? Or it that different?

Which Russians no less? In precisely what way did he intend to "promote and facilitate" terrorism against the US? Your evidence for this is....?

And this general is now collaborating with us? This is the one on the book tour, right? What makes you think this general - which general? - is any more reliable than Chalabi? What corroborating evidence is there? Did that general even claim first-hand knowledge?

Bought what? Bush cut the inspections short, saying he KNEW that Saddam had the weapons and a nuclear program. Don't you even remember those photos with the circles which pinpointed precisely where the weapon labs were located? Rumsfeld was sure that finding the weapons would be a "slam dunk". They were wrong.

He gambled that if he complied with our demands, we wouldn't invade his country. We sure fooled him.

What threat? Seriously, Scott, what threat precisely did Saddam make against the US and when?

Yeah, yeah, that is pure fantasy on your part. Saddam had no missiles capable of reaching the US. Saddam had no nuclear programme. Saddam had no tonnes of chemical weapons. Saddam had no weapon grade biological capabilities. Saddam had no mobile weapon labs. Yet, he was going to pull all this out of his hat come summer. In the meanwhile, North Korea does have nuclear capability and Iran is not far off (six to twelve years, being not far).

If Bush were prudent, he would not have ignored the terrorist warnings from the previous administration.

What evidence did Bush really have? What urgent factors compelled him to attack Iraq without even arming our soldiers properly? I haven't seen it.

 

If it were so easy, what's stopping the evil guys now?

Yes they were.

Yeah? How many and which ones?

David Kaye and Hans Blix disagree with you concerning the success. It has not been absolute, but it has been successful for the most part.

Where?

Really? Where? We sure didn't find them.

"Plans" as intentions, maybe, but no capability and nothing, nada, in place. Maybe he had scientist who could work on it and may not. What evidence do you have that he did?

Far more important than a will is the actual ability. He was a corrupt dictator not an evil genius. Somehow I suspect that staying alive and in power and accumulating wealth and prestige were more important to him than plotting the demise of the US.

What evidence do you have that he spent his days and nights plotting against us - other than your own paranoid fantasies?

Yes, Scott, we are. That is what bombs, mines and air strikes do.

Open your eyes, Scott. Civil war is the most devastating kind.

There are outsiders who we've let in, but what makes you think that they are responsible for all the civilian deaths? That is so bizarre, I have to wonder if you're serious in what you write.

Mushroom clouds in 45 minutes? Where have you been these last 3 years?

Show how they've exaggerated the evidence to sell the war and I'll condemn them equally.

DID, when? Back in the early 80s and 90s?

And what, precisely, did these "relationships" consist of and with which ones, precisely? Why was that a real threat to us? You are long on rhetoric but short on evidence (like none so far).

Huh! A toothless tiger may wish to do harm, but it has little ability.

So what? We kill tens of thousands of his subjects and sacrifice thousands of our soldiers for his joy? Overkill for overjoy.

Bingo!

Yes!!!! You do have to wait until they do something before you invade their country and kill their citizens. This is international law which we have agreed to. You don't attack someone on the suspicion that they probably want to do you harm - unless you are a paranoid lunatic.

Simply imagining that someone wishes you harm is not justification for attack. You do have to wait until they have actual weapons actually pointed in your direction. Hope has nothing to do with it.

Except you most certainly did.

Anyone who can read knows I explicitly stated otherwise.

If he had the will and the means a la 9/11, then why didn't he actually do it, eh? You paranoidly say he coulda, woulda done it, but he didn't, did he? Since you insist that he didn't lack oppurtunity, he must've lacked the will. If he didn't lack the will, then he must have lacked the capability.

No, he wasn't Scott! Look it up. He had kicked the inspectors out around, but he LET THEM BACK IN. The inspections were ongoing until BUSH KICKED THEM OUT. George, not Saddam stopped the inspections. Do you understand? Bush stopped the inspections because he said he KNEW where the weapons were (why he didn't just tell the inspectors, I never did figure).

We monitor him, Scott, as I have repeated over and over again. Monitor him and police his activities.

According to me? I have never said that, so why do you say I did? That is a dishonest tactic; shame on you.

Why, when he could have prevented the bloodshed? Up until then, Saddam was our Strong Man, our good friend.

Where do "preventive" attacks end? Many others can justify attacking us for precisely the same reasons.

 

We already had authorization to go into Iraq based on UN resolutions that Iraq had been violating on a regular basis. However, if we believed that Hussein had WMD's and we needed to prevent their use, why would it be wrong to assassinate him?

 

I think you can find the answer to this question in the PNAC document "Rebuilding America's defenses" on page fourteen Daisy.

Saddam was just the immediate justification for a wider conflict to control the Middle East (and it's resources). Says it right there in black and white.

 

I forgot to add this bit of info.

Al Qaeda Detainee's Mysterious Release
Moroccan Spoke Of Aiding Bin Laden During 2001 Escape

By Craig Whitlock
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, January 30, 2006; A01

RABAT, Morocco -- For more than a decade, Osama bin Laden had few soldiers more devoted than Abdallah Tabarak. A former Moroccan transit worker, Tabarak served as a bodyguard for the al Qaeda leader, worked on his farm in Sudan and helped run a gemstone smuggling racket in Afghanistan, court records here show.

During the battle of Tora Bora in December 2001, when al Qaeda leaders were pinned down by U.S. forces, Tabarak sacrificed himself to engineer their escape. He headed toward the Pakistani border while making calls on Osama bin Laden's satellite phone as bin Laden and the others fled in the other direction.

Tabarak was captured and taken to the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where he was classified as such a high-value prisoner that the Pentagon repeatedly denied requests by the International Committee of the Red Cross to see him. Then, after spending almost three years at the base, he was suddenly released.


Wasington Post

Would someone please try and explain the above to me?

Since when does UN resolutions trump the US congress and constitution?

 

Since when does UN resolutions trump the US congress and constitution? </font>[/QUOTE]I guess they somehow "turned" him, as they say in the community.
You capture an enemy on top of the OB, apply all the pressures you can on him, turn him, and let him go, and use him as 'tracer'.
Old trick. Sometimes old tricks work.
But Osama is an intelligent, dedicated enemy. That may not work on him.
OTOH, the 'turned' one may be absolutely dedicated to Osama, he somehow convinced the top guns of the community that he is turned, when he is not.
Remember David drooling and raving in front of Abimelech so he wouldn't be killed ?

 

Daisy,
I respect your opinion and stand on these things, but, you said:


...... We are half a world away and Iraq had nothing even near that strike capability.


The US is NOT half a world away from anywhere. Teh US is everywhere.
Our navy is subject to, and vulnerable to, attack by a determined, well-funded, well-connected terrorist organization. The USS Cole can happen again.

Our airbases can be infiltrated and barracks, hangars, and planes bombed.

Our personnel can be assassinated anywhere they are assigned.
American commercial planes can be attacked, hijacked, or destroyed, that 9/11 can happen again is a very real possibility.
Our embassies can be targeted and bombed.
US nationals and citizens can be kidnapped, as they are now, and murdered.
The US is everywhere.
Now, this may appear moot and academic to your brilliant mind (and I mean that, no sarcasm intended), but I felt I just had to say this.

 

Yeah I guess British intelligence hiding and protecting Aswatt up until just prior to the London bombings was some neat trick too.

No one ever said imperial rule was easy.

 

I know, facts are counter productive to a good disscussion. Truthiness is so much more fun.

 

I see you still believe the government conspiracy theory dispite the mountain of evidence to the contrary. That's too bad really. But given the billions spent on psyops and propaganda I'm not surprised.

 

Sorry, ftr, I did not mean to participate in hijacking the thread. Most of this argument is fruitless, because it will take years to sort it out (Iraq), and we've only had a short time to do so, with incomplete information.

 

BTW, Daisy, I did not mean to condone killing people who surrender -- I was talking about razing Iraq's military infrastructure .

I do have a heart.

 

He terrorized his own people. The Kurds- women, children, and elderly- were gassed. Yes, indiscriminately. They weren't military targets. They weren't tried and convicted criminals. They were the victims of a brutal dictator without conscience.

On 9/11, al Qaeda proved they were willing to target our innocent men, women, and children. Saddam didn't value the lives of his own people... how much less ours?

 

I guess that would depend on one's perspective. If you believe that the American ideals of liberty, justice, and human rights are superior then "yes" it was different. But if you think our system is morally equivalent to Saddam's regime... then over course not.

 

Hey there, ftr!

I could have sworn the UN turned us down thanks to France, Germany (who have veto power) and China (can they veto?). That's why the Bush admin began its anti-France PR campaign.

However, since you dispute this, please cite the source of the UN supporting the invasion. Also, please cite the law or treaty which allowed the Coalition to invade a sovereign nation.

Of course it was brutal and barbaric (although brilliant in a really evil way), but that wasn't Saddam or Iraq. That was the Arab Afghanis, al Qaeda and the Taliban - a different set of bad guys.

I apologize for derailing your thread.

Back on topic - if we could assassinate, say, bin Laden who did attack us, I still say no. Assassination is what "they" do, not what, I hope, "we" do. Murdering bin Laden would make him a martyr to too many. Arresting him as we did Saddam and treating him like a common criminal would be far more effective in defusing his power.

If we, the world's only superpower, resort to assassination, how could we ever criticize some podunk regime for the same thing? If the strongest nation in the world cannot act morally, lawfully, decently, what hope would there be for the rest of the world but to destroy us?