Author Topic: Brief thoughts on Sadam (Read 1603 times)

Sandman · « **Reply #90 on:** August 09, 2002, 12:53:12 PM »

I believe that BC had sufficient evidence to warrant an attack against the Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan. Specifically... the attack of the U.S.S. Cole.

Guess I should have been more clear... If GWB had as much evidence of Iraqi terrorist involvement as BC had of Al-Qaeda terrorist involvement, we would already be in Iraq.

Toad · « **Reply #91 on:** August 09, 2002, 12:57:16 PM »

Ah, ok.

Yep, I agree. IMO, he should've acted, the "Gore campaign" smokescreen is just that. Probably would've helped Gore more than hurt him, but again, that's my opinon only.

Hortlund · « **Reply #92 on:** August 09, 2002, 12:59:51 PM »

Guys..."casus belli" is a concept that was abandoned like 100 years ago.

The only thing you have now is the right to self defence. In some cases this right to self defence means that you have the right to a preemptive attack. One example of that is Israels attack on Egypt and Jordan 1967.

And besides, what should Iraq do? Sue the US? Any response against an "illegal" US invasion of Iraq would have to be authorized by the UN security counsel...

...so what country is a permanent member of the security counsel with veto right?

Sandman · « **Reply #93 on:** August 09, 2002, 01:04:52 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hortlund
The only thing you have now is the right to self defence. In some cases this right to self defence means that you have the right to a preemptive attack. One example of that is Israels attack on Egypt and Jordan 1967.

IMO, "Causus Belli" is worth considering when you're the most powerful country in the history of the planet.

Toad · « **Reply #94 on:** August 09, 2002, 01:15:35 PM »

Hort (if I may be so familiar

) it's isn't "causus belli" so much as Just War Theory.

There has to be a reason that the US can present to the UN.. .otherwise we're no different than those we oppose.

"Just war theory can be meaningfully divided into three parts, which in the literature are referred to, for the sake of convenience, in Latin. These parts are: 1) jus ad bellum, which concerns the justice of resorting to war in the first place; 2) jus in bello, which concerns the justice of conduct within war, after it has begun; and 3) jus post bellum, which concerns the justice of peace agreements and the termination phase of war."

It's not out of date; it's more important now than ever, especially given the status of the US on the world stage.

wsnpr · « **Reply #95 on:** August 10, 2002, 12:34:37 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hortlund

You find this funny? First you ask me how Iraq could possibly get enough anthrax into the US and spread it. When I tell you one possible scenario, Im paranoid? Exactly what kind of answer were you looking for? "They would send large packages of anthrax mailed from Baghdad with the words "DIE Americans" scribbled all over them"?

They have sniffing devices in place that can detect anthrax? Is that what you are telling yourself every morning when you open your mail? Do you have any idea how much those machines cost? Or how long it takes to make a test? (4 hours) Do you have any idea how many such machines there are in operation right now? ZERO . As of right now, the US post office radiates all mail going to Congress and White House..something that has caused serious health issues for the mailmen. see link

Can those machines detect smallpox? Nope. Have you any idea exactly how dangerous smallpox is? Or botulism?

And you need to learn who does what and where in the US intelligence community.

Hortland and rogwar,
My stating of a 'sniffing' device being in place was a mistake on my part. My apologies for stating something that wasn't actually true. (that post was in haste as I was in a rush to start my vacation and pulling 'facts' from my memory in haste.)

Hortland,
What I find funny is your paranoia. Why hasn't the US suffered an attack from anyone of your scenario in the past? Why is Iraq more of a threat to the US now than anyone else previous? (USSR-cold war; Germany, Japan, Italy-WWII; ______ -fill in the blank of any perceived enemy of the US now or in the past)

Iraq is very low on my 'worry' list. So is North Korea, So is Iran.
The only anthrax attack via mail appears to be from a US citizen (non-arab, non-muslim my guess).
The Tylenol tainting case was again done by a US citizen (non-arab, non-muslim).
The many shooting cases (101 california st.; San Ysidro; Dallas cafe; Postal shooting cases; etc, etc, etc) have been commited by US citizens (again non-muslim, non-arab)

Despite these many attacks, I will not live in fear. Life is a death sentence (we all will die someday). I choose to live life to the fullest and will continue to do so. The chances of my getting an anthrax, smallpox, botulism, etc attack on me that will originate (planned) from Iraq is nil. Hussein has way too much to worry about than to carry out an attack as I possibly see it. LOL, he cares more about his survival than to attack the US. Think about it. The attack, if it were to happen, as you envision will not destroy the US. (won't happen anyway). The chances of my dying by a fellow American is much higher than from a terrorist from a foreign nation.
Quit being so paranoid, step back from your computer and go LIVE life. Go have some fun and quit worrying about us 'naive' Americans.