Saddam's execution

[Kosmo]

The West has the right to shape the world as much as anybody else. Defending and expanding his political, cultural and economic interests it is vital for it's survival. Even if US traped Sadam, that I doubt, this was it's right in reaching the goals of it's policy. International metters should not be judged on the basis of morality, but in terms of efficiency in protecting national interest. Wilson was very wrong about it.

 

Sadam was not only the favorite of the West but also of the East. Most of his weapons were made by comunist countries and so were many of his factories including those that produced chemical weapons. He was seen as the one that stopped the spread of iranian islamic revolution and his baasist socialism was close to the national comunism of some countries.

 

The fact that US toppled a laic nationalist regime, albeit murderous, to replace it with a islamic teocracy, that is already criminal thru his militias, shows both a misunderstanding and a confusion about goals and purposes.

US and UK soldiers die to establish an islamic state that will hate them. That's not smart.

 

What is fancy explained with conspiracy theories is much more easy to understand as stupidity.

 

US institutions, like those of most other democracies, do not have the skill or the mentality to carry complex plots and to mentain secrecy. Even the simplest actions fail or end up in media or Congress. Only in Hollywood movies they are succesfull and invincible.

 

Sadam got what he gave to others. I really doubt that will benefit anyone especially after he was humiliated. I have no ideea about his crimes as most of what I heard was propaganda.

[Andrew Dalby]

The fact that US toppled a laic nationalist regime, albeit murderous, to replace it with a islamic teocracy, that is already criminal thru his militias, shows both a misunderstanding and a confusion about goals and purposes.

US and UK soldiers die to establish an islamic state that will hate them. That's not smart.

 

Very well put, Kosmo. I don't usually comment on modern political threads, but I just had to say I agree with you totally on this.

[Virgil61]

The fact that US toppled a laic nationalist regime, albeit murderous, to replace it with a islamic teocracy, that is already criminal thru his militias, shows both a misunderstanding and a confusion about goals and purposes.

US and UK soldiers die to establish an islamic state that will hate them. That's not smart.

 

I'll chime in that I agree with Andrew as well on the quality of your post and add you only missed piss-poor planning and ideologically driven blindness.

 

What is fancy explained with conspiracy theories is much more easy to understand as stupidity.

 

US institutions, like those of most other democracies, do not have the skill or the mentality to carry complex plots and to mentain secrecy. Even the simplest actions fail or end up in media or Congress...

 

Couldn't have said it better.

[Moonlapse]

What is fancy explained with conspiracy theories is much more easy to understand as stupidity.

 

US institutions, like those of most other democracies, do not have the skill or the mentality to carry complex plots and to mentain secrecy. Even the simplest actions fail or end up in media or Congress. Only in Hollywood movies they are succesfull and invincible.

I agree that what the current administration has done is truly stupid. I wouldn't just pass off everything in the past 60 years as stupidity while thinking that the highest classes in this nation are incapable of complex plots or farsighted planning. The only secrecy needed is the self-imposed secrecy of people who automatically reject anything labeled as 'conspiracy'.

 

Last time I checked, conspiracy was defined as an agreement between two or more persons to commit an unlawful act or to accomplish a lawful end by unlawful means. However, just a mention of the word automatically conjures up images of raving lunatics. Strange that the word authority doesn't do the same. Granted there are idiots who contribute to this widely held belief, but there are idiots in every classification you can come up with.

 

But anyways, no secrecy is needed. All the proof you need is in 100+ years worth of literature directly from the horses' mouths. If no one is willing to take the time to read it and understand it, and I don't mean from a textbook, then I guess it doesn't exist, right? Even if they do, they're classified as 'nuts'. You talk of the media and Congress as if they are unbiased and objective.

[M. Porcius Cato]

You talk of the media and Congress as if they are unbiased and objective.

 

Who "you"? No one, including Kosmo, implied that the media and Congress are unbiased. The claim was only that one needn't assume a conspiracy to explain something as utterly ordinary as the failure to rebuild a foreign government in five years' time. Hell, one needn't even assume that the Bush administration is filled by ideologically-driven nincompoops to explain their failures. The fact is that, even with the best leaders (say, Abraham Lincoln), it's damn near impossible for a military to re-build a civil society where one group has been oppressing the others for many years and where the oppressors managed to survive the war (another argument, btw, for wars of attrition).

 

I'd also add my agreement that conspiracy theories are inherently suspect. The problem is not that two people are inherently incapable of conspiring (though even that is hard, if you know the research on the Prisoner's Dilemma). The more fundamental issue is that conspiracy theories are bad as theories. Their problem is that they typically not only lack the most important feature of a good theory (ya know, evidence), but on top of that conspiracy fans typically proclaim this very failure as a point in their favor ("of course there's no evidence--it's a secret!"). And these conspiracy theories (like the various crackpot theories about who killed JFK) are epistemologically faultless in comparison to the really rotten conspiracy theories that don't even bother to posit who exactly conspires with whom over what (q.v., the latest "media conspiracy" du jour).

 

(Full disclosure: I'm part of a massive government cover-up to hide the truth about conspiracy theories. Don't believe a word I have to say.)

 

(Fuller disclosure: That was disinformation.)

 

(Fullerest disclo--oh, never mind.)

[Moonlapse]

LOL, I'm not saying that Bush's failure is a conspiracy. I was responding to the notion that political leadership in the US is not capable of conspiracy as the word is defined. I'll agree that conspiracy theories are inherently suspect, but so are official explanations. You can't just expect anyone to hand you the truth.

 

I see that you are insistent upon interpreting conspiracy as something that has to be secret. You've even illustrated the crackpot associations with the word. I'm saying that even large groups can 'accomplish a lawful end by unlawful means' and we don't care to accept the notion, even though there is nothing secret about it. Perhaps is because so many precedents have been set that people think that thats just how things work.

 

I'm talking about things like huge industrial philanthropic foundations undemocractically instituting mass education regardless of popular opposition while their literature clearly illustrates their goals as providing a means of manipulating the masses for the common good. Do you consider this crackpot?

[Horatius]

Ahh but we have the Proscription lists! http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Apr2003/pipc10042003.html still a few left, money can still be made! What do you think our troops are still doing there except for participating in a war of attrition ? "War of Attrition- A war of attrition is a protracted conflict in which one side attempts to wear down its enemy by continuously engaging in battle." Remember why Busch I never invaded Iraq? "Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, ..would have incurred incalculable human and political costs ... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. ...Under those circumstances, there was no viable exit strategy we could see, ... Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land." from "A World Transformed" Kind of weird reading that. 'It's funny cause it's true'. Does anyone really think any good can come out of this mess?

[Titus001]

If you want answers go to google video and type in The War Party,should explain some things about iraq.

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

Ahh but we have the Proscription lists! http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Apr2003/pipc10042003.html still a few left, money can still be made! What do you think our troops are still doing there except for participating in a war of attrition ? "War of Attrition- A war of attrition is a protracted conflict in which one side attempts to wear down its enemy by continuously engaging in battle." Remember why Busch I never invaded Iraq? "Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, ..would have incurred incalculable human and political costs ... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. ...Under those circumstances, there was no viable exit strategy we could see, ... Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land." from "A World Transformed" Kind of weird reading that. 'It's funny cause it's true'. Does anyone really think any good can come out of this mess?

 

Are you intentionally trying to be irrational?

 

If you want answers go to google video and type in The War Party,should explain some things about iraq.

 

I hardly find such bias and irreliable sites worth reading.

 

The only people that I listen to and understand always seem to ber Virgil, Gaius, Cato, Primus, Moonlapse,Tflex and other rational members who I trust have more knowledge than I do.

Edited January 4, 2007 by FLavius Valerius Constantinus

[Titus001]

It's a documentary about the planning of iraq by BBC,how can you say its bias if you did not watch it?Its only 40 mins and very informative.

[FLavius Valerius Constantinus]

It's a documentary about the planning of iraq by BBC,how can you say its bias if you did not watch it?Its only 40 mins and very informative.

 

Apparently, you don't realize that the BBC actually has its own agenda like CNN.

 

Well it's my view because I everytime I see a BBC World News Report on Iraq, never have I seen one positive light about our soldiers or even an in depth report.

 

And what's with the damn title ok BBC, the War Party, they make it sound like a conspiracy report.

 

Not very professional.

Edited January 4, 2007 by FLavius Valerius Constantinus

[M. Porcius Cato]

LOL, I'm not saying that Bush's failure is a conspiracy. I was responding to the notion that political leadership in the US is not capable of conspiracy as the word is defined.

 

OK. Yes, of course, political groups are capable of conspiracies. What else would one call Watergate?

[Kosmo]

LOL, I'm not saying that Bush's failure is a conspiracy. I was responding to the notion that political leadership in the US is not capable of conspiracy as the word is defined.

 

OK. Yes, of course, political groups are capable of conspiracies. What else would one call Watergate?

 

Stupidity?

[Moonlapse]

LOL, I'm not saying that Bush's failure is a conspiracy. I was responding to the notion that political leadership in the US is not capable of conspiracy as the word is defined.

 

OK. Yes, of course, political groups are capable of conspiracies. What else would one call Watergate?

Stupid is right. G. Gordon Liddy had previously proposed a plan that was twice as expensive and was outrageously stupid. The second plan, the one that was accepted, would cost half as much and was sane by comparison. The others who agreed to it were duped by perceptual contrast, people fall for it all the time from salesmen.

[Titus001]

What is stupid is that this war was planned by neo cons and have dual citizenship with isreal and they pretend that this war was for freedom.You guys want a real conspiracy,type in project for new american century which out lines wars in the the middle east,that document also says its an israeli strategic objective to have saddam removed from power,so who does this war benefit? Watch the video i posted,The war party which points out the head neo cons that outlined this war.Also i have found another great video on republican paul findlley/congressman.Just go to google video and type in paul findley and watch him talk about the most powerful lobby in this country and what power they have. he was a congressman for 22 years.

Edited January 5, 2007 by Titus001